Speaker Andrew Scheer’s statement yesterday on question period can be read in full here. The `‘s Paul McLeod is unpersuaded and thinks Scheer should either impose himself on the situation or remove himself from the situation.

Being a bit of an equivocator, I’m sympathetic to both the Speaker and his detractors (on my grumpier days I’m among those detractors).

There’s a very decent case to be made that the other 307 MPs in the House of Commons should take responsibility for themselves and the functioning of the place. The Speaker is not a kindergarten teacher. Our members of Parliament are (in theory) adults and we should be able to expect that they will approach elected office and the chamber they occupy with all the humility, responsibility and reverence that is due. If question period has been reduced to farce (or if it is simply too farcical), then MPs should be responsible for addressing that: either through changing their behaviour or changing the rules or explicitly empowering the Speaker to better control everyone.

Beyond that, there could be some onus put on the public. That’s somewhat complicated: it’s overly simplistic to imagine that voters should make “behaviour in question period and general respect for Parliament” to be their primary consideration when deciding who to vote for at the next election. But public cynicism and disinterest only make it easier for those who would disrespect our institutions to do so. Maybe if there were regularly several thousand people on the front lawn demanding a better Parliament, MPs would be less inclined to neglect their responsibilities in that regard.

As it pertains to replies to oral questions, “There are no explicit rules which govern the form or content of replies to oral questions. According to practice, replies are to be as brief as possible, to deal with the subject matter raised and to be phrased in language that does not provoke disorder in the House. As Speaker Jerome summarized in his 1975 statement on question period, several types of responses may be appropriate. Ministers may: answer the question; defer their answer; take the question as notice; make a short explanation as to why they cannot furnish an answer at that time; or say nothing.”

They may do that. Not must.

On the other hand, “It is the prerogative of the government to designate which Minister responds to which question, and the Speaker has no authority to compel a particular Minister to respond.”

And, “Members may not insist on an answer nor may a Member insist that a specific Minister respond to his or her question. A Minister’s refusal to answer a question may not be questioned or treated as the subject of a point of order or question of privilege.”

And while “the Speaker ensures that replies adhere to the dictates of order, decorum and parliamentary language,” he “is not responsible for the quality or content of replies to questions.”

In other words, if Paul Calandra, in responding to the leader of the Opposition on Tuesday, had referred to Tom Mulcair as a blatherskite, the Speaker likely would have been compelled to interject. But since Paul Calandra was merely talking about something that had nothing to do with the serious and straightforward question asked, the Speaker declined to get involved.

Is that a silly way to do things?

We might expect that behaviour such as Calandra’s would be so poorly regarded by the public that a minister or parliamentary secretary would be loathe to behave so flagrantly. Maybe somewhere deep in the recesses of the Prime Minister’s Office there is someone feeling slightly chastened by the reaction to this week’s display and so at least until the memory fades there will be some feeling that flipping off the opposition is not advisable.

If the Speaker wanted to interject, I think he could find an excuse.

Standing Order 11(2) states that, “The Speaker or the Chair of Committees of the Whole, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition, may direct the Member to discontinue his or her speech, and if then the Member still continues to speak, the Speaker shall name the Member or, if in Committee of the Whole, the Chair shall report the Member to the House.” (emphasis mine)

Scheer’s argument is that this rule applies only to the time reserved for debate in the House. And if you refer to your copy of the Annotated Standing Orders you will see that the rule dates to 1910 and that it is referenced only in the context of debate.

Now, would Calandra have objected to being cut off? Maybe. Would he have argued that his comments were relevant somehow to the question? Probably. (In fact, he has argued that in interviews.)

This is where things could get tricky. How do we want to define “relevance”? How strictly do we want this rule enforced?

I think, in the abstract, you could write a very precise rule that a Speaker could see fit to apply, keeping in mind that members might disagree with its application and that there would be continued debate about how it was being applied. All of which may or may not turn out to accomplish much.

I wouldn’t mind a more interventionist Speaker. I think Scheer could be much stricter about cutting off questions from the governing party that are really only attacks on the opposition with a question mark duct-taped to the end. (A simple rule proposal: Any reference to the opposition gets a question cut off. The Conservatives would whine about such a restriction, but question period doesn’t exist for any purpose except to hold the government to account. If Conservatives want to see that time used to keep the Liberals or NDP to account, they can go ahead and concede the next election.) I think the Speaker could make more effort to cut off statements by members—delivered in the 15 minutes just before question period each day—that are nothing more than attack ads. Of course, MPs might object and might try to get around whatever rules he applied. But it’d at least be interesting to see a long drawn-out fight over such stuff. The Speaker, even an aggressive one, can only do what the House will allow him. He serves at the pleasure of Parliament and can be removed by a vote. But a persistent Speaker removed or defied for being too aggressive might easily win the public’s sympathy and put his critics on the defensive.

That though requires a certain philosophical willingness to see the role that way.

It seems to me, more generally, that Speaker John Bercow in the United Kingdom—here is his speech on seeking the chair, here is a speech he gave on parliamentary reform—has been a prominent voice in the reform discussion. That, I think, is probably within the bounds of the job. Bercow’s comments in this speech about his efforts to “to test the elasticity of the office” are worth considering. (I won’t claim here to be thoroughly schooled in Bercow’s tenure. My impressions are anecdotal.)

It’s important though to not get lost into a debate about how the Speaker should be.

In a post this morning, the blogger Radical Centrist offered a very nuanced review of the institution of question period, how it compares to the situation in Britain and how it might be both understood and better managed. Those are structural issues.

Beyond that, there is culture and behaviour. The Speaker is important, but there is one of him and there are dozens of backbenchers on each side of the House. I might rather start by asking each of those MPs what precisely it is that they think they’re supposed to be doing here and why Parliament isn’t better than it is. That’s on them.

The NDP said Monday it is prepared to let the Speaker decide the fate of two Conservative MPs who have refused to comply with an order from Elections Canada requiring them to file corrected election returns.

The party is taking a middle path between the Liberals, who have called for an immediate suspension of Manitoba Conservatives James Bezan and Shelly Glover, and the Conservatives, who argue that the matter should be settled by the courts before the two MPs are suspended.

Via Twitter, former parliamentary law clerk Rob Walsh questions whether the Speaker has the authority to suspend the two MPs.

There was some anger, to be sure, but there was just as much guffawing and as many furrowed brows over the wish of these MPs to discuss abortion … These MPs wished to discuss an issue that their party leadership and the media have deemed out of bounds. Rather than defend the rights of MPs to bring their views into debate and to eventually have them put to a vote, we are subjected to commentary that the prime minister needs to exercise more control over his caucus. We are told that MPs should be allowed to speak, but perhaps not on this issue. What other issues are off limits remains to be seen.

MPs come to Ottawa understanding that they serve at the pleasure of their leader. Those same leaders act virtually free of constraints. When MPs assert their rights, it is portrayed as a party in disarray and as leaders losing control when in fact it is actually parliamentary democracy in action. Acknowledging that MPs can rise to their feet and be recognized to speak without their party’s approval is surely a gain for our Parliament. But it will move our democracy only an inch rather than a mile if we do not equally free MPs from the things that keep them off their feet.

I have been asked by several media outlets whether I intend to avail myself to this reestablished opportunity. The answer is “yes,” though I have not yet done so. The reason (and I believe the reason is important to an understanding as to why we have noticed only incremental change in the operation of the House) for this is that a rediscovered right or opportunity should not be deployed capriciously or in a cavalier manner. I did not advocate for a Member’s ability to speak freely just so that Members could speak merely to hear the sound of their own voices. They should reserve the opportunity and indeed the privilege to speak in the House to occasions when they have something substantial to say.

But Members must avail themselves of that ability to attempt to be recognized on occasions when that Member has something important to say, because the right to speak freely in this House was not so much taken away by the leadership as it was voluntarily ceded. So it is up to us now…

Peter calls the Speaker’s ruling a “hollow” victory. I think it’s probably more accurately described as a small victory—one that could take on more significance if MPs are willing to make use of it.

The basic problem is an imbalance of power. At present, it is the party leader who possess an overwhelming amount of it. When Mark Warawa stood on a question of privilege, he was openly questioning this dynamic. Nine other government backbenchers followed suit and did likewise. Those acts alone were significant in that they demonstrated a degree of independence and empowerment.

It is possible, I suppose, that someone on the government side had some inkling that simply standing up during the time reserved for statement by members would have allowed MPs to subvert the list prepared by their party whip. Mr. Warawa says he had no idea. Regardless, when the Speaker stood and ruled as he did, it was an official and public acknowledgement and invitation: an important statement from the authority of the Speaker’s throne that the whip and his list do not prevent MPs from performing the physical act of standing. If, as it seemed, Mark Warawa’s subsequent threat to stand without official approval resulted in him being put on the whip’s list, that was a specific victory for Mr. Warawa: a concession from his party’s leaders that they did not wish to be publicly subverted. Going forward, any backbencher who is told he cannot stand and speak, as Mr. Warawa was, can plausibly threaten to stand of his or her own volition.

Of course, the system of incentives—the political and media pressures—that existed before the Speaker’s ruling still exists now. And there is much more that might be done to achieve a more healthy balance between the party leader and the MP, the executive and the legislature. But over the last few weeks, ten government backbenchers stood and asked the Speaker to confirm their rights as individual members of the legislature and the Speaker responded with a public assurance that they could stand at their own discretion. That is a small, but potentially useful, victory.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/mark-warawa-and-the-conservative-backbenchers-won/feed/17The Speaker’s ruling on the case of Mark Warawahttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-speakers-ruling-on-the-case-of-mark-warawa/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-speakers-ruling-on-the-case-of-mark-warawa/#commentsTue, 23 Apr 2013 19:30:27 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=375987No breach of privilege, but an opening for the uprising to continue

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 26 by the Member for Langley (Mr. Warawa) regarding the presentation of a Member’s Statement pursuant to Standing Order 31.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for Langley for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. Chief Government Whip (Mr. O’Connor), the hon. House Leader for the Official Opposition (Mr. Cullen), the hon. House Leader for the Liberal Party (Mr. LeBlanc), and the Members for Vegreville—Wainwright (Mr. Benoit), Saanich—Gulf Islands (Ms. May), Lethbridge (Mr. Hillyer), Winnipeg South (Mr. Bruinooge), Edmonton—St. Albert (Mr. Rathgeber), Brampton West (Mr. Seeback), Kitchener Centre (Mr. Woodworth), New Brunswick Southwest (Mr. Williamson), Wellington—Halton Hills (Mr. Chong), Glengarry—Prescott—Russell (Mr. Lemieux), South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale (Mr. Hiebert), Medicine Hat (Mr. Payne), West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country (Mr. Weston), Halifax (Ms. Leslie), and Thunder Bay—Superior North (Mr. Hyer) for their comments.

In raising his question of privilege, the Member for Langley explained that, shortly before he was to rise during Statements by Members on March 20, he was notified by his party that he could no longer make his statement because, as he put it, (quote) “the topic was not approved” (unquote). In making his case, he argued that the privilege of freedom of speech is designed to allow Members to discharge their responsibility to ensure that their constituents are represented. While the Member accepted the practice of parties submitting lists of Members to the Speaker, he objected to this being managed in such a way that the equal right to speak could be removed. He stated that (quote) “If at any time that right and privilege to make an S.O. 31 on an equal basis in this House is removed, I believe I have lost my privilege of equal right that I have in this House.” (unquote) He further argued that, ultimately, it is only the Speaker who has the authority to remove a Member’s opportunity to speak and that the equal opportunity of every Member to make statements pursuant to Standing Order 31 must be guaranteed.

In his intervention, the Chief Government Whip reminded the House that all recognized parties resort to the use of speaking lists and that (quote) “the practice for many years in the House is for the Speaker to follow the guidance provided by the parties…” (unquote). He added that, since the preparation of lists is an internal affair of party caucuses, it is not something the Speaker ought to get involved in.

For his part, the Opposition House Leader suggested there exists a role for the Speaker in regulating the natural tension between Members and their parties, and the right to speak in Parliament. He went further, saying, (quote) “The issue is the need for members of Parliament to speak freely on behalf of those whom we seek to represent” (unquote) and, in support of this view, he cited House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, which states at page 89, (quote) “by far, the most important right afforded to Members of the House is the exercise of freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings” (unquote).

However, he also noted that, with the entrenchment of the practice whereby Whips determine which of their Members will speak and the concurrent absence of a Standing Order explicitly allowing the Speaker to intervene in that process, he questioned whether the will and support of the House would be required before the Chair could do so.

Several other Members intervened in support of the Member for Langley, while another echoed the comments of the Chief Government Whip. For his part, the Member for New Brunswick Southwest suggested that I should expand my review of this matter to include not just lists for Statements by Members, but also for Question Period.

I wish to begin by reminding the House of the role of the Chair in determining matters of privilege. O’Brien-Bosc, at page 141, states:

(quote) “Great importance is attached to matters involving privilege. … The function of the Speaker is limited to deciding whether the matter is of such a character as to entitle the Member who has raised the question to move a motion which will have priority over Orders of the Day; that is, in the Speaker’s opinion, there is a prima facie question of privilege. If there is, the House must take the matter into immediate consideration. Ultimately, it is the House which decides whether a breach of privilege or a contempt has been committed.” (unquote)

I also wish to address what seems to be a widespread misconception about the role of the Speaker in matters of this kind. Several Members have used sports analogies to describe me as a referee or league convenor. Perhaps there are elements of a referee role for the Speaker, but with one important difference: there is no league that appoints the Speaker to enforce rules from on high, in a vacuum. Instead, here in the House of Commons, the Members elect a Speaker from among the membership to apply rules they themselves have devised and can amend. Thus it is only with the active participation of the Members themselves that the Speaker, who requires the support and goodwill of the House in order to carry out the duties of the office, can apply the rules. As is stated in O’Brien and Bosc at page 307:

(quote) “Despite the considerable authority of the office, the Speaker may exercise only those powers conferred upon him or her by the House, within the limits established by the House itself.” (unquote).

In making their arguments in this case, several Members have correctly pointed out the fundamental importance of freedom of speech for Members as they carry out their duties. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 89 refers to the freedom of speech of Members as:

(quote) “[…] a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents.” (unquote)

The Speaker’s role in safeguarding this very privilege is set out in O’Brien and Bosc, at page 308:

(quote) “The duty of the Speaker is to ensure that the right of Members to free speech is protected and exercised to the fullest possible extent”. (unquote)

This last citation is particularly important, since it highlights a key reality, namely that there are inherent limits to the privilege of freedom of speech. Aside from the well-known prohibitions on unparliamentary language, the need to refer to other Members by title, the rules on repetition and relevance, the sub judice constraints and other limitations designed to ensure that discourse is conducted in a civil and courteous manner, the biggest limitation of all is the availability of time.

I need not remind the House that each and every sitting day, a vast majority of Members are not able to make a statement pursuant to Standing Order 31 as there simply is not enough time available. It is likely for this reason that the Standing Order states that Members “may” – not shall – be recognized to make statements. Hence, while many Members in this instance have spoken of the right to speak, the Member for Langley acknowledged this inherent limitation and spoke more precisely of the equal right to speak. It is this qualifier of rights – equity – that carries great significance and to which the Chair must pay close attention.

Put another way, the Chair is being asked by the Member for Langley whether the practice of Whips providing the Speaker with the names of Members who are to be recognised to speak during Statements by Members represents an unjust limitation on his freedom to speak, to the extent that such opportunities are not afforded to him on an equitable basis.

There is no denying that close collaboration has developed over time between the Chair and party Whips to find ways to use the time of the House as efficiently as possible, and to ensure that all parties are treated equitably in apportioning speaking time. In some cases – the timing of recorded divisions comes to mind – the Standing Orders enshrine a specific role for the Whips. In other cases, there is no Standing Order, but rather a body of practice that the House follows and that evolves over time. A reading of the history of Members’ Statements at pages 420 to 422 in O’Brien and Bosc tells us that our practice in that regard has had to adjust and respond to changing circumstances on more than one occasion, with each practice enduring only so long as it matched its era and the will of the House. By 1982, it had settled into what we know it to be today; that is, the order and number of slots to be allotted to Members of different political affiliations are agreed upon by the parties at the beginning of a Parliament and adjusted from time to time, as necessary. Then, at each sitting, the names of Members who are to fill the designated speaking slots are provided to the Speaker by the Whips of the different recognized parties and by the independent Members. Even if not enshrined in the Standing Orders, generally the House has been well served by this collaboration and the lists have helped the Chair to preside over this portion of each sitting day in an orderly fashion.

But does this mean that the Chair has ceded its authority to decide which Members are to be recognized? To answer this question, it is perhaps useful to review the history of the lists, which were first used for Question Period in the 1970s. At page 61 in his memoir Mr. Speaker, in which he describes his time in the Chair, Speaker Jerome explains that he was comfortable using a party’s suggested lists (quote) “so long as it didn’t unfairly squeeze out their backbench.” (unquote)

In a June 19, 1991, ruling found at page 2072 of the Debates, Speaker Fraser was even more categorical about the authority of the Chair. In response to a Member who asked if the Chair was bound to follow a set list in recognizing Members, he said:

(quote) “I appreciate the honourable Member’s intervention and my answer is yes, there is a list. I am not bound by it. I can ignore that list and intervene to allow private Members, wherever they are, not only to ask questions but also to ask supplementals. That is a right which remains with the Chair and I do not think it has ever been seriously challenged. I would remind all honourable Members that it is a right which the Chair has had almost since: “The memory of man runneth not to the contrary”.” (unquote)

The authority the Speaker has in this regard is likewise described in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 318, which states:

(quote) “No Member may speak in the House until called upon or recognized by the Speaker; any Member so recognized may speak during debate, questions and comments periods, Question Period, and other proceedings of the House. Various conventions and informal arrangements exist to encourage the participation of all parties in debate; nevertheless, the decision as to who may speak is ultimately the Speaker’s.” (unquote)

It further states on page 595 that:

(quote) “Although the Whips of the various parties each provide the Chair with a list of Members wishing to speak, the Chair is not bound by these.” (unquote)

Similarly, Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Sixth Edition, on page 137, states that (quote) “…the Speaker is the final authority on the order of speaking.” (unquote)

I myself have seen fit from time to time to deviate from the lists, usually in an effort to preserve order and decorum during Statements by Members and Question Period.

Accordingly, the Chair has to conclude, based on this review of our procedural authorities and other references, that its authority to decide who is recognized to speak is indisputable and has not been trumped by the use of lists, as some Members seemed to suggest.

I might add as an aside that the use of lists in general has inadvertently created an ongoing problem for the Chair: in some cases, Members do not stand to be recognized because they are on a list and thus think they will automatically be recognized when their “turn” comes around. As Acting Speaker Bob Kilger put it in a statement found at page 3925 of the Debates on May 5, 1994:

(quote) “We speak about or refer to these unofficial lists that we have, which are somewhat helpful at times, but in the end members seeking the floor of course are those who will be recognized by the Chair.” (unquote)

Thus, the need to “catch the Speaker’s eye”, as it is called, continues to underpin the Chair’s authority in this respect.

Members are free, for instance, to seek the floor under “questions and comments” at any time to make their views known. They are also free at any time to seek the floor to intervene in debate itself on a bill or motion before the House. Ultimately, it is up to each individual Member to decide how frequently he or she wishes to seek the floor, knowing that being recognized by the Speaker is not always a guaranteed proposition.

The right to seek the floor at any time is the right of each individual Member of Parliament and is not dependent on any other Member of Parliament.

Now, on the narrow question of whether the removal of the Member for Langley from his party’s lineup for Statements by Members on March 20th constitutes a prima facie matter of privilege, the Chair cannot conclude that there is a prima facie finding of privilege. No evidence has been presented to me that the Member has been systematically prevented from seeking the floor. The Chair has found that the Member for Langley has been active under several rubrics since the beginning of this Parliament. He has made statements under Statements by Members on a variety of subjects; he has presented petitions; he has made speeches and has risen on questions and comments under Government Orders; he has made speeches under Private Members’ Business and he has risen in Question Period.

As I said earlier, he has remained free to seek the floor at any time, like all other Members.

However, on the broader question of the equitable distribution of Statements by Members, a review of the statistics reveals that the Member may well have a legitimate concern. This goes to the unquestionable duty of the Speaker to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution. This includes ensuring that, over time, no Member wishing to speak is unfairly prevented from doing so.

Even so, as Speaker I cannot exercise my discretion as to which Member to recognize during Statements by Members or at any other time of the sitting day if only one Member is rising to be recognized. As previously mentioned, due to an over-reliance on lists, more often than should be the case, even those Members on the list do not always rise to be recognized.

Were the Chair to be faced with choices of which Member to recognize at any given time, then of course the Chair would exercise its discretion. But that has not happened thus far during Statements by Members, nor for that matter, during Question Period. Until it does, the Chair is not in a position to unilaterally announce or dictate a change in our practices. If Members want to be recognized, they will have to actively demonstrate that they wish to participate. They have to rise in their places and seek the floor.

In the meantime, I will continue to be guided by the lists that are provided to me and, when and if Members are competing for the floor, will exercise my authority to recognize Members, not in a cavalier or uninformed manner but, rather, in a balanced way that respects both the will of the House and the rights of individual Members.

I would like to thank all honourable Members for their attention during this rather lengthy ruling.

This wording, if accurate, imports the word “Party” previously absent from the Standing Order; importing the concept of Party seems to run contrary to the stated intent of the Motion, to remove the control and vetting of SO 31s from the Parties. More troubling, the draft seems to infer (or at least is open to the interpretation of) equality of parties. It appears the proposed rotation would be on a Party basis, meaning that all Parties would have equal, not proportional, slots. That would certainly advantage parties with smaller caucuses, whereas the current system appropriately distributes spots proportionally to the size of the caucus. Mathematically, the 8 Independents would similarly get 25% of the rotation; accordingly each would get to deliver a Member’s Statement approximately every other day.

The awkward wording aside, it is also unclear that the Motion is well intentioned. It has been suggested that its entire purpose is to “wedge” Members such as myself, who have been vocal in favour of Parliamentary Reform, to vote in favour of the Motion, possibly against the wishes of our Leadership. Regardless, the whole Motion could be pre-empted and deemed moot by a positive ruling from the Speaker. I have argued in the House that the current Standing Order 31 is actually quite clear and as written, does not support Party or Whip vetting. If the Speaker so rules and provides appropriate direction, that would be a preferable outcome to amending the Standing Order unnecessarily and especially using unclear wordage that denotes equality of Parties rather than equality of Members.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-backbench-spring-brent-rathgeber-on-justin-trudeaus-gambit/feed/10How to make the House a little bit safer for Mark Warawahttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-to-make-the-house-a-little-bit-safer-for-mark-warawa/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-to-make-the-house-a-little-bit-safer-for-mark-warawa/#commentsTue, 26 Mar 2013 17:43:47 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=364885Take the power away from the parties

]]>In regards to this, here is how the guide to House practice and procedure explains how MPs are selected to stand and deliver statements during the time reserved each day for statements by members.

The opportunity to speak during Statements by Members is allocated to private Members of all parties. In according Members the opportunity to participate in this period, the Chair is guided by lists provided by the Whips of the various parties and attempts to recognize those Members supporting the government and those Members in opposition on an equitable basis.

Nothing in Standing Order 31 establishes that the Speaker be so guided. And so the Speaker should simply abandon party lists and ask MPs to submit their names to his office, at which point MPs will be called on in the order that their submissions arrive (with the same allowance made for a balance each day between government and opposition statements).

This would also have the effect of making it a bit harder for parties to stack those 15 minutes each day with partisan harangues.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-to-make-the-house-a-little-bit-safer-for-mark-warawa/feed/11‘There may be some exceptions in those African dictatorships’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/there-may-be-some-exceptions-in-those-african-dictatorships/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/there-may-be-some-exceptions-in-those-african-dictatorships/#commentsThu, 07 Feb 2013 22:28:19 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=348189How about less party discipline and a stricter Speaker?

]]>The Globe consults academics who suggest party discipline is stricter in Canada than almost anywhere else.

“There may be some exceptions in those African dictatorships that are part of the Commonwealth and so on,” says Leslie Seidle, a research director with the Institute for Research on Public Policy, “but in the advanced parliamentary democracies, there is nowhere that has heavier, tighter party discipline than the Canadian House of Commons. People are kicked out of their party temporarily for what are really very minor matters.”

Richard Simeon, a professor emeritus of political science and law at the University of Toronto and a member of the university’s School of Public Policy and Governance, agrees. “We are worse than the Australians, and much worse than the British, in terms of giving MPs the ability to act and to somehow make a difference,” said Dr. Simeon.

The Globe also notes a recent intervention of the Speaker in New Zealand.

During a recent debate in that country’s legislature, Prime Minister John Key was asked by an opposition leader to explain why he had said the filming of the movie The Hobbit would create 3,000 jobs. When Mr. Key asserted that the film had increased tourism, the opposition leader objected and the Speaker stopped the Prime Minister from going further. “I appreciate the member’s concern,” he said. “He asked a question, but he did not ask for that information.” That’s a far cry from Canada, where responses from the government go unchecked even though they often have little bearing on what was asked.

I suggested something similar a week ago: the Speaker should have the authority to cut off a response that strays off topic. Here, for another example, is the Speaker in Britain both cutting off and admonishing Prime Minister David Cameron during a session of Prime Minister’s Question in June 2011.

I’d like the Speaker to be more assertive on a couple fronts, but, in the context of Question Period, he can’t be asked to judge whether or not a question has been answered sufficiently. I think he should, just as he can cut off a question that doesn’t deal with the business of government, cut off a response that strays from the subject raised, but it’s problematic (and unworkable) to expect that he should be judging the quality of the response for the purposes of deciding when a question has truly been answered. I also disagree with Andrew’s suggestion that he should be able to compel a minister to stand. If the government side wants to hide a minister behind a designated deflector, that’s for the public to judge and the government to explain.

As for the way we elect our federal representatives, I’ve lately fallen for the idea of a ranked ballot. And unlike proportional representation or mixed-member proportional representation, I think a ranked ballot is something that could be widely accepted by the public and easily adopted.

(I’d happily be done with the monarchy, but, as Chantal says, it’s hard to imagine how that change would come about. If we’re looking around for things to abolish, it’d be more practical to focus on the Senate.)

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/lets-all-fret-about-our-democracy-and-the-monarchy/feed/1The Speaker on Parliamenthttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-speaker-on-parliament/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-speaker-on-parliament/#commentsThu, 13 Dec 2012 15:00:08 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=327825The Speaker returned to the House yesterday with a response to the points of order raised on November 28 by Nathan Cullen and Peter Van Loan, particularly Mr. Van Loan’s…

]]>The Speaker returned to the House yesterday with a response to the points of order raised on November 28 by Nathan Cullen and Peter Van Loan, particularly Mr. Van Loan’s concerns about the opposition’s ability to subject bills to multiple votes.

The underlying principles these citations express are the cornerstones of our parliamentary system. They enshrine the ancient democratic tradition of allowing the minority to voice its views and opinions in the public square, and in counterpoint allowing the majority to put its legislative program before Parliament and have it voted upon. In advocating a much stricter approach to the report stage on Bill C-45, the government House leader seemed to argue that the existence of a government majority meant that the outcome of proceedings on the bill was known in advance, that somehow this justified taking a new approach to decision making by the House and that anything short of that would constitute a waste of the House’s time. This line of reasoning, taken to its logical end, might lead to conclusions that trespass on important foundational principles of our institutions, regardless of its composition.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-speaker-on-parliament/feed/6The Speaker on decorumhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-speaker-on-decorum/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-speaker-on-decorum/#commentsThu, 13 Dec 2012 13:00:38 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=327739Before the House rose last night for Christmas, the Speaker delivered a statement on decorum.As the House prepares to adjourn for the Christmas holidays, the Chair would like to …

]]>Before the House rose last night for Christmas, the Speaker delivered a statement on decorum.

As the House prepares to adjourn for the Christmas holidays, the Chair would like to make a short statement about order and decorum.
In recent months, for a variety of reasons, the atmosphere in the chamber has been at times difficult. This is perhaps not surprising since the House is made up of members who are committed and whose strongly held views are freely expressed on a daily basis.

The House is also an inherently adversarial forum that tends to foster conflict. As a result, sometimes emotions get the better of us and we quickly find ourselves in situations marked by disorderly conduct. Tone and gestures can cause as much of a reaction as the words used in debate. Lately, it appears that at different times the mood of the House has strayed quite far from the flexibility, accommodation and balance that ideally ought to exist in this place.

My task as Speaker is to ensure that the intensity of feeling expressed around some issues is contained within the bounds of civility without infringing on the freedom of speech that members enjoy. The Chair tries to ensure that our rules are adhered to in a way that encourages mutual respect.

However, all members will recognize that ultimately the Speaker must depend on their collective self-discipline to maintain order and to foster decorum. My authority to enforce the rules depends on the co-operation of the House.

Our electors expect all members to make greater efforts to curb disorder and unruly behaviour. So I urge all members to reflect on how best to return the House to the convivial, co-operative atmosphere I know all of us would prefer.

After QP, NDP House leader Nathan Cullen was asked about the role of the Speaker and Mr. Cullen suggested he might have something to propose in the new year.

I’m going to look to do something in the new year that will empower the Speaker with the support again of the House, because I think this is supported by Canadians, to be able to command the House even more and for all the heckling and the jostling and the sneering that goes on which is not representative of Canadian values, as far as I’m—Canadians don’t talk to each other this way, in any other circumstance, other than here in the House of Commons. Maybe in the cheap seats of a hockey game, but that’s about it and the House of Commons should be better than the drunken seats at a sporting event. So we’ll be offering some things to the Speaker and to the House to allow him more discretion and more power to control some of the members, but it’s like any class in a school. There’s only 5 or 10% that cause all of the trouble and I can name them for you. We know who they all are and the Conservatives know who they are too and just—this is their only lot in life I guess now, is that they’re not going to get into cabinet, they’re not getting any special appointments and they’re not very good at their job. So what do they do? They sit there and bark all day and it says a lot more about them than it does us.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-speaker-on-decorum/feed/4Not quite a sleepover after allhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/not-quite-a-sleepover-after-all/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/not-quite-a-sleepover-after-all/#commentsThu, 29 Nov 2012 17:11:24 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=321413As per the Speaker’s ruling this morning, there will be a maximum of 47 votes on C-45 at report stage. For the sake of comparison, there were 157 votes required…

The independent member’s motions are an interesting question. They require some attention, because the independent member does not sit on committee. However, they should not be dealt with in such a manner that they represent, effectively, a harassment of the balance of the House. Compared to the several hundred amendments proposed by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands in June, on Bill C-38, her proposals as of today’s date are slightly less unreasonable. However, the fact remains that the rights of individual members of Parliament must be balanced with the ability of the majority of the House to dispatch its business with some reasonable, practical speed. Allowing a single member of Parliament to hold the House hostage in a voting marathon is simply not reasonable.

I propose the following arrangement, which could, in future, extend to other government bills. Report stage motions submitted by a member of Parliament who is not part of a recognized party shall be selected in the manner provided for by our rules. The selected motions may be grouped for debate in the usual fashion. Subject to the next point, the voting patterns for the motions would be set in the usual manner, as required by the ordinary practices of considering legislative amendments. However, one amendment per independent member of Parliament would be chosen to be a test vote. The voting pattern for the rest of that independent member’s motions would only be implemented if the test motion were adopted. A rejection of the test motion would be inferred as a rejection of all that member’s proposals. Therefore, the balance of the independent member’s motions would not be put to the House.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/not-quite-a-sleepover-after-all/feed/41How not to ask a question about supply managementhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-not-to-ask-a-question-about-supply-management/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-not-to-ask-a-question-about-supply-management/#commentsThu, 21 Jun 2012 20:52:39 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=269664Fans of both supply management and proper parliamentary practice take note: the government side sent up Joe Preston this afternoon to attempt to ask the following.Mr. Speaker, our government …

]]>Fans of both supply management and proper parliamentary practice take note: the government side sent up Joe Preston this afternoon to attempt to ask the following.

Mr. Speaker, our government has always been a consistent defender of supply management. By contrast, the Liberal Party offers no concrete proof of its position. The Liberals left supply management out of its election platform and constantly votes against measures that benefit our supply managed farmers and all rural Canadians. Could the Minister of Agriculture please inform the House of the most recent example of how the Liberal Party is turning its back on our egg, dairy and poultry farmers?

The Speaker duly ruled this out of order and moved on to the next question.

I have had to rule before that questions to the government have to touch on government areas of responsibility. Asking about the position of another party is not a government area of responsibility.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-not-to-ask-a-question-about-supply-management/feed/6C-38: A breach of privilege?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/c-38-a-breach-of-privilege/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/c-38-a-breach-of-privilege/#commentsMon, 11 Jun 2012 19:51:42 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=265986NDP House leader Nathan Cullen rose after QP this afternoon on a point of privilege to argue that the Conservatives were in breach of the House for failing to disclose…

]]>NDP House leader Nathan Cullen rose after QP this afternoon on a point of privilege to argue that the Conservatives were in breach of the House for failing to disclose information about spending cuts to be carried out as a result of C-38.

Here is a copy of the letter Mr. Cullen sent to Speaker Scheer earlier today to explain his concerns.

And here is the transcript of Mr. Cullen’s comments in the House (and Peter Van Loan’s response).

Nathan Cullen: I bring forward a question of privilege after significant work and research with regard to the bill we have before us in Parliament. I bear your consideration, Mr. Speaker. A letter will be forthcoming to your office to outline and explain the specific details, but we believe we do have a prima facie case of privilege. We have looked at this with very careful consideration, and I would like to thank my team for putting this together under difficult circumstances.

There are many charges of contempt that go on within this place and not all of those are privilege, but every finding of privilege is in fact a contempt. The definition of this is that the powers of Parliament to do its job, to do three things in particular: to legislate, deliberate and hold the government to account, are paramount to all of our work. We know through the very constitution itself that the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects hereinafter enumerated: 1(a) the public debt and property; 2(a) unemployment insurance; (8) the fixing of and providing for the salaries and allowances of civil and other officers of the Government of Canada. This will be the focus of our point with you this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

We have also confirmed this all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada v Vaid in 2005, that the supremacy of Parliament to do its job in this regard is paramount and cannot be confined nor restricted. O’Brien and Bosc on page 59 confirm this in that this right, this privilege can be broken either individually for members or collectively for us as a group. We include very explicitly that the privileges of members of the governing side have also been infringed by the process that has been taken on through Bill C-38.

Page 61 of O’Brien and Bosc states: The privileges of Members of the House of Commons provide the absolute immunity they require to perform their parliamentary work while the collective or corporate rights of the House are the necessary means by which the House effectively discharges its functions.

Mr. Speaker, we have built our case and are confident that you will find in this that the breach of privilege conducted here is significant enough to warrant a decision from you, hastily, after other parties have had their opportunity to intervene.

In one of the last rulings by your predecessor, Speaker Milliken, on April 27, 2010, in ruling on the question of privilege surrounding the provision of information to the special committee on the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, Speaker Milliken said: “In a system of responsible government, the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation”.

Herein lies our privilege. We have used every available tool to the opposition through questions on the order paper, requests through the Parliamentary Budget Officer, questions at question period and at committee directly to the ministers pertaining to this issue, to understand directly and implicitly the impacts of the legislation that the government has been moving forward through its budgets and explicitly about what the cuts and implications will be for its budget measures, cuts to either services or to the number of employees who will be affected.

Allow me to say this, Mr. Speaker, and it is extremely important for your ruling, there is no dispute from the government side that the numbers in fact exist. The government is well aware of what the impacts will be on Canadians and has in fact publicly declared that the information exists. We heard from the President of the Treasury Board himself. He said in an interview with a reporter on May 9 of this year that he would like to release more information but was held “…’hostage’ to parliamentary reporting procedures and labour contracts, which require notices to affected employees going out before cuts could be made”.

Essentially, the government is requiring members of Parliament to vote blind on the legislation coming forward. In our conversations with the Parliamentary Budget Officer and in his conservations with the government, he has explicitly requested the information that has been made available to him by right under the act that the government moved as its second act, the Federal Accountability Act. Various places in the act require the government to produce, in a timely and transparent manner, information that exists.

There are two reasons why the government may withhold this information. If the information is not accessible through access to information or if the information is confidentially provided to cabinet. The Clerk of the Privy Council has provided neither of those reasons. Herein lies the case of privilege, that in citing the reasons of confidentiality because of some obligations under the collective agreement with the various unions that make up the civil service—while I may say so is a unique moment where the government has actually cared about a collective agreement with anybody under their employ—the reason given by the Privy Council, the head of the civil service, is not a valid one.

It is not a reason that he can use to block information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That is not an exercisable reason under the act and it impedes parliamentarians from doing our work and we vote blind on the actual budget. There is no cabinet confidentiality and these are not pieces of information that have been denied through access to information. To say that this is critical to members of Parliament to understand before they vote on the budget is an understatement.

The government has moved a number of measures, within which are contained impacts on Canadian society, through the services and programs Canadians rely upon and directly through employees of the federal government and communities across this country. I would have expected members of the government to ask this question but they have so far been mute on this point.

In breaking the Federal Accountability Act, the government would once again show that perhaps the act was not worth the paper it was written on. This is the response we got from the Clerk of the Privy Council, in a letter written to the Parliamentary Budget Officer on May 15. It states:

But as indicated in the budget document, the government is equally committed to treating its employees fairly and respecting its contractual obligations. This means that departments could provide information to affected employees and their unions in the first instance, as required, under the applicable collective agreements. Once this has happened, then they will offer up to the Parliamentary Budget Officer and, through him, to parliamentarians the information.

The unions have been contacted and have publicly said to the government and to the Privy Council that it would not break their collective agreement, thereby taking away the sole reason that the government had to deny MPs their privilege.

Allow me to run the timeline and I will finish with this. The first thing members of Parliament sought to do was to request the information from the government, as is our obligation under the Standing Orders and as members of Parliament, to find out what the impacts of their bill would be. This would apply to any bill. Certainly on a bill as broad sweeping as this, it would be important. The government denied this, either through question period or at committee. We then sought information through questions on the order paper. That too was denied. We then sought information through the Parliamentary Budget Officer who is legally obligated and enshrined with the right to seek this information unless legally denied, which he was not. That too was denied from government. We are now at a place where we are being forced in some short time to vote on a bill whose impacts the government understands, but refuses to share with members of Parliament and those people whom we seek to represent. This is, by all definitions we can find, an infringement on the rights and privileges of members of Parliament.

If the House cannot hold the government of the day to account, then why have the House at all? If members of Parliament cannot do their jobs and cannot go back to their constituents with a clear conscience and understanding of the legislation that has been brought before us and its implications, then why are members of Parliament in the service of Canadians at all? They are not.

We seek this through you, Mr. Speaker. We carefully went through all the O’Brien and Bosc which offered us numerous points. Allow me one. On page 281 of Bourinot’s Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, it states:

The right of Parliament to obtain every possible information on public questions is undoubted, and the circumstances must be exceptional and the reasons very cogent when it cannot at once be laid before the Houses.

There is no such reason given by the government. The Conservatives do not deny that the information exists, that the cuts to services and programming for Canadians exist and are understood. They have said that, from the very senior bureaucrat, the person who works with the Prime Minister. The President of the Treasury Board has also said that the information exists. Their reasons for denying members of Parliament their right to this information have also been shown to be not true. All that is left in defence of this place and in defence of members of Parliament is you, Mr. Speaker, whose job and role it is to defend the institution, regardless of the sways of the political discourse that go on everyday. The institution requires us to have the information to both debate and vote with clear conscience and information. The government is denying that information. While this may be a pathology with the Conservatives, it does not give them the opportunity or the reason to deny members of Parliament these key and critical data. It is absolutely essential for us to maintain certain principles as best as we may through all of the discourse that goes on here.

The principle that we in opposition hold dearly is that our job, each and every day, is to hold the government to account. There should be those joined on the other side who share that principle because it is one that is shared by all of us. The Conservatives may heckle the opportunity to speak and they may suggest that there is not something of right and privilege here but they know better.

I remember the days when hon. members on that side stood for these principles. I remember the days when we in opposition worked with the government on its second piece of legislation, the Accountability Act, which we have quoted here today, that set up an institution which we agreed with the Parliamentary Budget Officer to seek and garner this information.

Now what do we have? We have a government that insists that members of Parliament should vote blind, that Canadians should simply trust them and that it is somehow good enough. This is not a right-left issue, this is right and wrong. The government knows it is wrong. It has the information and is denying Parliament and parliamentarians and the people we represent access to information that we need.

There is much more we could say, but I understand that time is pressing. I am therefore prepared to move an appropriate motion if you find a prima facie question of contempt.

Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend for his novel and innovative approach on this question, but I think it actually ends up being so innovative that it is far off the mark.

First, I will start off simply by saying that I believe what he was saying is that we have to deal with this now because it is in the context of Bill C-38. I understand that is the context in which he raises his point of order.

Of course a point of order such as this has to be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. Bill C-38 was introduced into the House on April 26. We are now some month and a half later, so he is very late to raise this argument.

Second, he has not cited any particular section or provision of the bill to which he takes exception for which he says these important questions have not been answered. Once again, I think what he is talking about is not anything to do with any content of Bill C-38, so he is off the mark there.

Third, the kinds of measures to which he is speaking, moneys that are spent on programs and on personnel, are normally reported and approved by Parliament, not by a budget implementation act but rather through the appropriations bills which appear before this Parliament. That is the appropriate point for him to raise his questions. That is the process through which Parliament would report and provide the information he is looking for.

If he is looking for information more detailed than what is in one of those appropriation bills, that would be the point for him to raise those questions and raise those points. We are not currently dealing with an appropriation bill through this House. There is no appropriation bill outstanding before this House. I expect he may wish to return to his point of order some months hence when we have our next appropriation bill before the House if he feels he has not achieved satisfaction at that time, if he feels that the reporting mechanisms of the government have not been sufficient, but we certainly are not facing that situation in any way with regard to Bill C-38.

Therefore, I think his point is very far off the mark, but I would be happy to return if further submissions are required.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/elizabeth-may-reacts/feed/6‘The Chair cannot justify’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-chair-cannot-justify-setting-aside-bill-c-38/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-chair-cannot-justify-setting-aside-bill-c-38/#commentsMon, 11 Jun 2012 16:29:59 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=265910The prepared text of Speaker Scheer’s ruling on Elizabeth May’s point of order.I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on June 5, 2012 by …

]]>The prepared text of Speaker Scheer’s ruling on Elizabeth May’s point of order.

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on June 5, 2012 by the hon. Member for Saanich—Gulf Islands (Ms. May) regarding the form of Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for having raised the matter, as well the hon. Leader of the Government in the House (Mr. Van Loan), the hon. House Leader for the Official Opposition (Mr. Cullen), the hon. House Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Garneau), and the hon. Members for Winnipeg Centre (Mr. Martin), Winnipeg North (Mr. Lamoureux) and Thunder Bay—Superior North (Mr. Hyer) for their comments.

The foundation of the arguments brought forward by the Member for Saanich – Gulf Islands is that Bill C-38 has not been brought forward in a proper form and is, therefore, imperfect and must be set aside. Specifically, the Member relies on Standing Order 68(3) which states that (quote) “no bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape” (unquote).

In laying out her case, she argues that in its current form, the bill fails the tests of being (quote) “a proper omnibus bill” (unquote), first because it lacks one central theme, that is (quote) “one basic principle or purpose” (unquote); second because it fails to provide a link between certain items in the Bill and the Budget itself; and, third, because it (quote) “omits actions, regulatory and legislative changes” (unquote) that are purported to be included in it by representatives of the Government.

In response, the Government House Leader indicated that Bill C-38, as a Budget implementation bill, has as its unifying theme the implementation of the Budget. This, he reminded the House, arose from the adoption of the Budget by the House. To use his words (quote) “The budget sets the clear policy direction and the budget implementation bill implements that direction” and is “a comprehensive suite of measures designed to ensure jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity”. (unquote)

Before I address the arguments put forward in this case, it is perhaps useful to remind Members of what the provisions of Standing Order 68(3) – the basis of the point of order raised by the Member for Saanich – Gulf Islands – refer to. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 728, states: (quote) “Since Confederation, the Chair has held that the introduction of bills that contain blank passages or that are in an imperfect shape is clearly contrary to the Standing Orders. A bill in blank or in an imperfect shape is a bill which has only a title, or the drafting of which has not been completed. Although this provision exists mainly in contemplation of errors identified when a bill is introduced, Members have brought such defects or anomalies to the attention of the Chair at various stages in the legislative process. In the past, the Speaker has directed that the order for second reading of certain bills be discharged, when it was discovered that they were not in their final form and were therefore not ready to be introduced.”(unquote)

Furthermore, at pages 730 to 734, Members can find a description of the various elements that comprise a bill. A bill must have a number, a title, an enacting clause, and clauses. It may also have a preamble, interpretation and coming-into-force provisions, and schedules. Having reviewed Bill C-38, I can assure the House that it contains all of the required elements and is therefore in proper form in these respects. In addition, the requisite notice was given for its introduction and the Bill was preceded by a Ways and Means motion, as is required. It is also duly accompanied by a Royal Recommendation.

Now the Member for Saanich – Gulf Islands has taken the argument of imperfect shape one step further in stating that Bill C-38 is not in the proper form in that it is not, in her words, (quote) “a proper omnibus bill”. (unquote)

Here again, it is perhaps useful to return to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, which states, at page 724, in reference to omnibus bills: (quote) “Although this expression is commonly used, there is no precise definition of an omnibus bill.”

It then goes on to state that: (quote) “In general, an omnibus bill seeks to amend, repeal or enact several Acts, and is characterized by the fact that it is made up of a number of related but separate initiatives. An omnibus bill has (quote) “one basic principle or purpose which ties together all the proposed enactments and thereby renders the Bill intelligible for parliamentary purposes” (unquote). One of the reasons cited for introducing an omnibus bill is to bring together in a single bill all the legislative amendments arising from a single policy decision in order to facilitate parliamentary debate.” (unquote)

At page 725, O’Brien and Bosc goes on to state: (quote) “It appears to be entirely proper, in procedural terms, for a bill to amend, repeal or enact more than one Act, provided that the requisite notice is given, that it is accompanied by a royal recommendation (where necessary), and that it follows the form required.”(unquote)

Naturally, there have been a number of rulings on the subject. Among these is a ruling given by Speaker Sauvé on June 20, 1983, which can be found at pages 26537 and 26538 of Debates, where she stated that: (quote) “…although some occupants of the Chair have expressed concern about the practice of incorporating several distinct principles in a single bill, they have consistently found that such bills are procedurally in order and properly before the House.” (unquote)

On April 11, 1994, Speaker Parent faced similar objections to another budget bill – C-17 – when a Member argued that the House was being asked to take a single decision on a number of unrelated items. As can be found at pages 2859 to 2861 of the Debates, the Speaker disagreed, noting that in the Chair’s opinion: (quote) “…a common thread does run throughout Bill C–17; namely, the government’s intention to enact the provisions in the recent budget, including measures to extend the fiscal restraint measures currently in place.” (unquote)

The second argument raised by the Member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, which is irrevocably linked to her first argument regarding the need for a central theme, was that there are elements found in Bill C-38 that were not provided for in the Budget. It would be useful, at this juncture, to remind Members that the long title of Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, is very broad, as is typical in bills of this kind. Clause 1 of the Bill, which contains its short title, provides that (quote) “This Act may be cited as the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act” (unquote) and thus restates the very broad scope of the measure. O’Brien and Bosc, at page 731, notes that the long title sets out the purpose of the bill, in general terms, and must accurately reflect its content. Speaker Fraser, on June 8, 1988, at page 16257 of the Debates, also referred to the use in our practice of generic language in bill titles and stated that: “…every Act being amended need not be mentioned in the title”.

If the long title had been specific and limited in scope, then the hon. Member might have had a sounder basis for claiming that the Bill goes beyond what was contained in the Budget. However, the title of Bill C-38 is wide in scope, and therefore, it is an accepted practice that the content of the Bill could be similarly broad.

The third point raised by the Member for Saanich—Gulf Islands relates to her contention that representatives of the Government, during debate at second reading of Bill C-38, claimed that the Bill gave legislative effect to policy decisions that are not in fact contained in the Bill.

What the Member is raising here is perhaps a question of relevance in debate or a dispute as to facts. As Speaker Milliken stated at page 5411 of the Debates on October 27, 2010: (quote) “It is not the Speaker’s role to determine who is right and who is wrong. I know there are disagreements over some things that are said in this House, but it is not up to the Speaker to decide either way”. (unquote)

It may well be that Members, in their remarks, spoke about elements of the government’s fiscal or regulatory policy intentions that were not contained in the Bill, or that may flow from the Bill if it is passed. These are matters that are beyond the purview of the Speaker. Given the generous latitude for relevance which is typically accorded to Members on such wide-ranging debates, including that on the Budget, it is in keeping with parliamentary practice that issues raised in debate would not exactly mirror the contents of legislation in every respect. As such, while these concerns are certainly pertinent to the wider debate surrounding the bill, they do not, in and of themselves, point to a technical deficiency in the Bill itself.

As the Member for Saanich—Gulf Islands noted, my predecessors have frequently been called upon to rule on matters pertaining to omnibus bills. In this regard, her argument that, (quote) “… there is a compelling case that the House must act to set limits around omnibus legislation” (unquote) is one that has been made before. On these occasions, the key question faced by Speakers has been: What is the role of the Chair in dealing with such matters?

As Speaker Sauvé said on March 2, 1982 at page 15532 of the Debates: (quote) “It may be that the House should accept rules or guidelines as to the form and content of omnibus Bills, but in that case the House, and not the Speaker, must make those rules.” (unquote)

Speaker Fraser, in the June 8, 1988 ruling referred to by the Member, advanced his own view of the role of the Chair in dealing with omnibus bills, by stating, at page 16257 of Debates: (quote) “Until the House adopts specific rules relating to omnibus Bills, the Chair’s role is very limited and the Speaker should remain on the sidelines as debate proceeds and the House resolves the issue.” (unquote)

Indeed, the Member for Saanich—Gulf Islands herself also recognized the limited role of the Speaker in such circumstances, stating: (quote) “It is clear that the Speaker is not, at present and in the absence of rules from the House to limit the length and complexities of omnibus bills, entitled to rule that an omnibus bill is too long, too complex or too broad in scope.” (unquote)

It may well be time for Members to consider our practices for dealing with omnibus bills. However, in the absence of any clear rules, I find myself agreeing with Speaker Fraser, that the most appropriate role for the Chair is to step aside and allow the House to determine the matter.

When addressing similar matters in relation to omnibus bills, Speaker Jerome on May 11, 1977, at page 5523 of Debates, and Speaker Parent on April 11, 1994, at page 2861 of Debates, both suggested that Members could propose amendments at report stage to delete clauses they felt should not be part of a bill, or vote against it. We all know that this has certainly been done with respect to Bill C-38.

In the same ruling by Speaker Parent, again at page 2861 of Debates, he stated: (quote) “…it is procedurally correct and common practice for a bill to amend, repeal or enact several statutes. There are numerous rulings in which Speakers have declined to intervene simply because a bill was complex and permitted omnibus legislation to proceed.” (unquote)

Perhaps the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which is engaged in a review of the Standing Orders could examine this thorny issue as part of its study. But until such time as the House feels compelled to set new limits on omnibus legislation, as your Speaker, I must continue to be guided by current rules and practice. Having reviewed the submissions made by hon. Members and the relevant precedents – including the many rulings just cited – the Chair cannot agree with the honourable Member for Saanich – Gulf Islands to conclude that Bill C-38 is not in the proper form and therefore should not be allowed to proceed.

In the absence of rules or guidelines regarding omnibus legislation, the Chair cannot justify setting aside Bill C-38 and, accordingly, must rule that Bill C-38 in its current form is in order.

The Liberals have called a news conference for 10am this morning to explain their strategy. We should find out around noon, with a ruling of the Speaker, how many votes C-38 will face.

I’ve seen it suggested that all of those votes, however many there are, will be considered confidence votes. As I tried to explain in the comment thread under this post, that’s not necessarily true. It is essentially up to the government to decide whether the loss of a vote means defeat. Were the opposition to successfully delete a clause or amend the budget, it would be for Stephen Harper to decide whether he wanted to ask the Governor General for an election as a result.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/265804/feed/2Q&A: Elizabeth Mayhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/qa-elizabeth-may/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/qa-elizabeth-may/#commentsTue, 05 Jun 2012 17:39:53 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=264180While she took a short break from the House this morning, the Green MP and I spoke about C-38 and her point of order. In the process, as you will …

]]>While she took a short break from the House this morning, the Green MP and I spoke about C-38 and her point of order. In the process, as you will see, she corrected my own mistaken impression of what yesterday’s intervention sought.

Q:When did you first start to think about moving this point of order?

A: To tell you the truth, last year. If you want to go back to Hansard, my very first question in Question Period, last June, was to Jim Flaherty to ask whether he planned to put forward an omnibus bill with many measures. And the response was no. And I was very relieved and I went to him afterwards and I said, so really, it’s not going to be one of these big ones? Because I hadn’t been in the House obviously—I wrote extensively on it, I read the bills, I blogged about them, in 2009 and 2010, that these were outrageous. So it’s been on my radar for a long time, that under Stephen Harper, obviously omnibus bills have come up before, that’s why there’s a lot of precedent for me to go through in Hansard, but really nothing like this, nothing like the last few years. I actually anticipated that Peter Van Loan might say, as he did yesterday, we’ve had much longer bills. Yeah. But only yours. And not ever challenged. There are no Speaker’s rulings on the omnibus budget bills of 2009, 2010. So the first piece of research that I asked the parliamentary library to do for me last year was on the procedural rules around omnibus budget bills. Because if there had been one last summer and I was so sure there would be one. And then I actually voted for the budget implementation bill last year because it was very clever, it was a series of measures that nobody could be against. It was removing the GST and HST on the sale of poppies to the Canadian Legion and reducing the licensing and fees required to operate a canoe or kayak. I mean, I’m not kidding, it was a bundling together of friendly moves. And it wasn’t unanimously passed, but I did vote for it. This time around, I didn’t expect this, I have to say. Having read the budget, the budget was quite bad enough that I wasn’t thinking, oh, I bet they’ll do worse in the budget implementation bill. Somehow it had receded in my mind. But the research had been done by the parliamentary library. Now, of course, I did substantially more research than the summary I got from the parliamentary library, but at least I had a grounding in the topic.

Q:To your knowledge, has a Speaker ever broken up an omnibus bill?

A: I’m not asking to break it up. Because they have made rulings that they will not break up an omnibus bill. If it’s a legitimate omnibus bill. My argument is different.

Q:Right.

A: So I’ve gone back to the most compelling language from various Speakers … there are lots of interesting and relevant Speakers’ comments. But John Fraser, as Speaker in 1988, was called upon to rule on whether it was appropriate for the government of the day to bring in an omnibus bill that implemented the free trade agreement. And obviously that brought in a huge variety of implications across the economy, lots of legislation affected. But he really clearly nailed down the rules and then he went through the process and said, this is an omnibus bill. It was a clear finding on the side that if it had been up to him, it sounded very much as though the energy bill of 1982, which was split up as a result of the actions of the House due to the bell-ringing episode, wasn’t a proper omnibus bill. So if you’re looking at where’s the precedent, there’s never been a bill that pretended to be an omnibus bill that wasn’t one that has been the subject of a Speaker’s ruling. Frankly, that’s why I argued what I argued. There’s no point going to the Speaker of the House and saying, break up an omnibus bill, because there’s lot of precedent that the Speaker does not have the authority to break up an omnibus bill. At least until the House creates different rules. But this isn’t a proper omnibus bill.

Q:So if this played out and the Speaker agreed with you, what would then happen?

A: Then the bill would be rejected. And speakers have rejected bills that didn’t meet Standing Order 68 or are in other ways deficient. Over the history of Parliament, Speakers have ruled bills out of order. The Speaker does have that power. The Speaker has a number of options. Obviously he could rule against me. He could rule for me 100% and say this bill is rejected, it’s not a proper omnibus bill. Or he could do the sort of partway ruling, such as what Peter Milliken did around the Afghan detainee documents and say, look, I’m prepared to find prima facie that this isn’t a properly constructed piece of omnibus legislation, these are the rules around an omnibus bill and I’m asking if the government and the parties in the House, together, would like to present C-38 in proper form. In other words, punt it back to the government and the opposition parties to sort it out. I think in a lot of ways that would be a helpful thing for the Speaker to do. Obviously helpful in terms of protecting democracy, which is my main argument. But in the political undercurrents that I’m seeing right now, the movement against C-38 is growing and it’s growing in Conservative ranks, it’s growing in Conservative heartland. There are an awful lot of people against this legislation … Keith Ashfield, in bringing in these changes, said changes to the Fisheries Act, which of course weren’t part of the budget, we have to bring in these changes to the Fisheries Act because there are so many municipalities across the country complaining about the current Fisheries Act. Well, this weekend, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, almost unanimously, voted to appeal to the Prime Minister to remove the fisheries legislation from C-38. They are very concerned about it. Not only was that a group the government didn’t think would oppose them, they were claiming that group was on board. I think they may have decided that by sticking a lot of controversial things inside a budget, nobody would ever notice them. But the opposition is building. And in ways that they probably didn’t expect. Because they probably thought, oh, it’ll be the usual suspects, the groups we’ve already attacked and smeared as radicals and getting money from foreign sources and we can ignore those people because we’ve shut them down and we’ll just ride this out. But I don’t think that’s the case anymore. And I think if the Speaker can provide them the space, who knows, they might actually appreciate an out, so they can get what they need passed and reintroduce properly the bills that have nothing to do with the budget.

Q:Is there any argument to be made that your point of order should have been introduced before this bill was passed at second reading?

A: No, not really. You can introduce a point of order at anytime. And at the time of that, there were negotiations taking place between the official opposition and the government of the day and who knew how that was going to turn out? In some ways, there could have been an argument that I should’ve waited to see what it looked like when it came out at the other end of committee. And I thought about that, but realized this is a substantive point of order and I expect that Speaker Scheer will do it justice. And that means listening to the arguments from the other parties in the House, constructing, researching and writing what will be, one way or the other, a precedent-setting decision. It’s not something done lightly and therefore I didn’t want to squeeze it so that my point of order would come when the bill came back at report stage.

Q:And would you say you feel confident at this point?

A: I feel confident that I’ve written an argument that is legally correct.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/qa-elizabeth-may/feed/3How to properly chastise another MPhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-to-properly-chastise-another-mp/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-to-properly-chastise-another-mp/#commentsFri, 18 May 2012 14:14:03 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=259635As noted yesterday, there was a small discussion after QP yesterday about the proper use of the adjectives of “stupid” and “ignorant.” Speaker Scheer explained as follows.I would agree …

]]>As noted yesterday, there was a small discussion after QP yesterday about the proper use of the adjectives of “stupid” and “ignorant.” Speaker Scheer explained as follows.

I would agree with the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley that calling another member stupid would be unparliamentary. The phrase I heard was referring to the comments made by the member and criticizing the statements he made. That is as I heard it. I would not want to comment on not being able to find more appropriate words to make a point. Certainly, members might want to use their own judgment when it comes to the elevation of their debate. I certainly cannot find that referring to a member’s comments and criticizing the comments in that way would fall into the same category as making a personal attack and making a personal characterization. That is as I heard it today.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-to-properly-chastise-another-mp/feed/5‘We may have reached the point where we are going too far’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/we-may-have-reached-the-point-where-we-are-going-too-far/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/we-may-have-reached-the-point-where-we-are-going-too-far/#commentsFri, 11 May 2012 18:51:10 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=258337On the afternoon of January 26, 1971, Robert McCleave, the Progressive Conservative MP for Halifax-East Hants, rose on a point of order to complain about Bill C-207, the Government Organization…

]]>On the afternoon of January 26, 1971, Robert McCleave, the Progressive Conservative MP for Halifax-East Hants, rose on a point of order to complain about Bill C-207, the Government Organization Act. In Mr. McCleave’s opinion, the bill should not be read a second time, but rather be divided as it contained “at least seven distinct proposals or principles.”

I suggest to Your Honour that there is more than one proposal or principle involved in this bill, and therefore, having regard to the very ancient privilege of the House that members should not be asked to give simple answers to what are, in effect, several questions intermingled together, I ask Your Honour to take the position of ordering that the bill be divided when the vote comes so that honourable members have a chance to make a decision on each proposal.

A discussion—including contributions from revered parliamentarians Allan MacEachen and Stanley Knowles, among others—ensued. After various members had had their say, Speaker Lucien Lamoureux ruled. It was this ruling that Young Stephen Harper invoked when he objected to the Liberal government’s budget implementation act in 1994.

I’ve photocopied and scanned the debate and you can read it here. I’ve transcribed Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling below.

The argument was well put, as it was well put today by the honourable member for Winnipeg North Centre and others. I said that I did not want to go into the details of the few precedents I have before me of more recent vintage. However, reference was made to the Veterans Benefits Act of 1954, and again the same argument was made by the honourable member for Winnipeg North Centre. Then, jumping a decade or so we go to 1964, when the late, respected and beloved member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, the Honourable George C. Nowlan, raised the same point. He said, as reported at page 9086 of Hansard for October 15 of that year: “As the minister has told us, we are dealing here with the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, the Trust Companies Act and the Loan Companies Act. Quite a mélange.”

Perhaps honourable members might have wanted to say the same thing about the bill now before the House. There is no question, without going further into the details, that this is a long established practice. We have had this type of omnibus bill before the House on many occasions. The President of the Privy Council and the Minister of Agriculture have quite rightly argued their case that this is long established practice and that the government has followed past practice. That is their argument and it has to be respected. Certainly, the Chair must take that into account because of the importance of precedent in our system.

However, where do we stop? Where is the point of no return? The honourable member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I believe the honourable member for Edmonton West, said that we might reach the point where we would have only one bill, a bill at the start of the session for the improvement of the quality of life in Canada which would include every single proposed piece of legislation for the session. That would be an omnibus bill with a capital “O” and a capital “B”. But would it be acceptable legislation? There must be a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint.

At the same time, having now reached second reading and having had this bill before us for some time, I doubt whether we should take the very drastic and extreme position, as I suggest to honourable members it would be, of saying that this bill is not acceptable to the House, that it not be considered by honourable members. In my view it should be the responsibility of the Chair, when such bill is introduced and given first reading, to take the initiative and raise the matter for consideration of the House by way of a point of order, as I have taken the liberty of doing with a number of private members’ bills. When those bill came before the House for first reading I entered a caveat about them and gave honourable members an opportunity of expressing their views. At any rate, some of those bills were refused by the Chair.

At that point, it is much easier for the government to go back to the legislative mill, to the judicial luminaries of the Department of Justice, where these bills are prepared for the consideration of Parliament. If I may say so, I think that even those very learned gentlemen should take into account the fact that this aspect of legislation is of interest to all honourable members, of interest I am sure to the government, and certainly of interest to the Chair, namely, that there must be a point where an omnibus bill becomes more than an omnibus bill and is not acceptable from a procedural standpoint.

One or two honourable members have argued that there would not be an opportunity for members to express their views by way of a vote on individual parts of the bill or individual clauses. That is perhaps not entirely correct. I am not here referring to the committee of the whole; I have made that distinction before now. For honourable members to express their view in committee of the whole on a particular clause of the bill is not the same as being given an opportunity to express their views on a clause of the bill by way of a recorded vote.

The House must note that there is a third reading stage of a bill. When a bill comes to the House for third reading there is not one clause or one part of the bill that cannot be brought into question by way of an amendment proposing that the particular clause or section be referred back to committee. I think this gives every honourable member an opportunity to vote either for or against, or to express his views in the House either for or against, a particular clause or part of the bill, and to do so by way of a recorded vote. Accordingly there still is a measure of protection afforded honourable members.

Having said this, I would have to rule—if I must rule—that the government has followed the practice that has been accepted in the past, rightly or wrongly, but that we may have reached the point where we are going too far and that omnibus bills seeks to take in too much. All honourable members should be alerted to the difficulty of which the Chair is fully conscious. When another omnibus bill is proposed to the House, it should be scrutinized at first reading stage, when honourable members will be given the opportunity of expressing their view, and the Chair can express its view, either that the bill goes too far or that it is acceptable from a procedural standpoint.

I think that this discussion has been a valuable one, certainly as far as the Chair is concerned, and I thank honourable members for the views that they have expressed. Certainly, I am very impressed by them and propose to take them into account when the circumstances warrant an examination of the point of order in the future.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/we-may-have-reached-the-point-where-we-are-going-too-far/feed/1Case dismissedhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/case-dismissed/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/case-dismissed/#commentsMon, 07 May 2012 19:51:58 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=257320Shortly after QP this afternoon, the Speaker dismissed Bob Rae’s question of privilege for wont of evidence.
The prepared text of the full ruling is below.I am now prepared …

]]>Shortly after QP this afternoon, the Speaker dismissed Bob Rae’s question of privilege for wont of evidence.

The prepared text of the full ruling is below.

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 5, 2012, by the Member for Toronto Centre (Mr. Rae) about statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Harper), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. MacKay), the Minister of Public Works and Government Services (Ms. Ambrose), and the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Fantino) regarding the proposed acquisition of F-35 fighter jets.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Mr. Van Loan), the House Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Cullen) and the Members for Richmond–Arthabaska (Mr. Bellavance), Saanich–Gulf Islands (Ms. May), Scarborough – Guildwood (Mr. McKay) and Malpeque (Mr. Easter) for their comments.

In raising this question of privilege, the Member for Toronto Centre contended that an opinion attributed to two government departments in Chapter 2 of the Auditor General’s Spring 2012 Report to Parliament is at variance with statements the Prime Minister and certain ministers have made to the House on the same matter, namely that the government accepts all the recommendations and conclusions in the Auditor General’s report. The part of the report that is in question reads as follows: (quote) “National Defence and Public Works and Government Services Canada disagree with the conclusions set out in paragraphs 2.80 and 2.81.” (unquote) Based on this, the Member for Toronto Centre claimed that, the Prime Minister and the Ministers of National Defence and Public Works and Government Services, as well as the Associate Minister of National Defence had presented “two completely different and contradictory versions of reality” to the House. Noting that it is a fundamental obligation of the government to tell the House the truth, the Member stated that the Government seemed to be attempting to deliberately confuse the House.

With respect to the cost projections of the F-35 fighter jets, the Member for Toronto Centre also claimed that, if the Government does indeed fully accept all of the Auditor General’s conclusions and recommendations, then it is, in fact, agreeing with the Auditor General’s assessment that “some costs were not fully provided to parliamentarians” and thus that Parliament had been misled. He went further, alleging that Ministers were aware of the facts and thus knew that what they were saying in the House was not true. In reply, the Government House Leader explained that the departmental responses to the Auditor General’s conclusions were those of the departmental officials, rather than the Government itself. He said: “The position of the government is not the position taken by the officials in those departments”.

The charges being leveled against the Prime Minister and three ministers are serious. They go to the very essence of the need for clarity in our proceedings, and the need to ensure that information provided to the House by the Government is such that the ability of Members to carry out their duty of holding the government to account is not diminished or impeded.

The issue of ministerial responsibility and accountability has also been raised by several Members. The Chair would like to set this aspect of the matter aside immediately. As all hon. Members know, constitutional issues of this nature are not matters of parliamentary procedure, and they are well beyond the range of matters the Speaker can be asked to rule upon.

In reviewing the other arguments being advanced, it would seem that the Chair is being asked to ascertain whether what was said in the House was truthful. However, I must remind Members that in such circumstances, the Chair`s role is clear and, indeed, very limited. In House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 510, it states:

(quote) “The Speaker, however, is not responsible for the quality or content of replies to questions. In most instances, when a point of order or a question of privilege has been raised in regard to a response to an oral question, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is a disagreement among Members over the facts surrounding the issue. As such, these matters are more a question of debate and do not constitute a breach of the rules or of privilege.” (unquote)

There are in addition many relevant rulings from my predecessor Speaker Milliken and I will quote from several of them.

The first, from January 31, 2008, is found at pages 2434 and 2435 of Debates. In it, he stated:

(quote) “Any dispute regarding the accuracy or appropriateness of a minister’s response to an oral question is a matter of debate; it is not a matter for the Speaker to judge. The same holds true with respect to the breadth of a minister’s answer to a question in the House: this is not for the Speaker to determine.”

Again on February 26, 2004, at page 1076 of Debates, he confirmed:

(quote) “As hon. members know, it is not the Speaker’s role to adjudicate on matters of fact. This is something on which the House itself can form an opinion during debate.” (unquote)

The Member for Toronto Centre himself acknowledged this parliamentary convention when he said, “while it is not for the Speaker to determine what is fact,…”

So what then are the parameters of the Speaker’s role when faced with such allegations? Speaker Milliken summed it up quite succinctly on April 21, 2005, when he said at page 5412 of Debates:

(quote) “In the present case, I must determine whether the minister’s responses in any way impeded members in the performance of their parliamentary duties and whether the remarks were intentionally misleading…” (unquote)

Then, on January 31, 2008, Speaker Milliken again had cause to state, at page 2435 of Debates:

(quote) “As hon. members know, before finding a prima facie breach of privilege in situations such as these, the Speaker must be convinced that deliberately misleading statements were made to the House.” (unquote)

It has become accepted practice in this House that the following elements have to be established when it is alleged that a Member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House: one it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the Member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the Member intended to mislead the House.

It is with this very high threshold in mind that I have carefully reviewed all the interventions on this matter, as well as statements made to the House and replies given during Oral Questions by the Prime Minister and the various Cabinet Ministers involved.

With regard to the first argument advanced by the Member for Toronto Centre, the Chair has difficulty accepting the view that because Ministers are stating that they accept the findings and agree with the conclusions of the Auditor General — which include, in part, a statement written by the Auditor General relating that two departments disagree with him — that this in and of itself is evidence that these same Ministers have deliberately misled the House and intended, in doing so, to impede Members in the performance of their duties.

What the Chair has before it is a statement, by the Government House Leader that, having taken into account the findings of the Auditor General, the government has decided that it rejects the position previously taken by officials as conveyed in the report. As I pointed out earlier, the Minister has stated rather starkly that “the position of the government is not the position taken by the officials in those departments.” Accordingly, with respect to this aspect of the question, the Chair cannot find grounds for a prima facie finding of privilege.

The second argument made by the Member for Toronto Centre is that because the government agrees with the Auditor General’s assessment that (quote) “some costs were not fully provided to parliamentarians” (unquote), this means that the House was misled. He further claims that (quote) “…for a long time, the members of the executive council knew that what they were saying in the House of Commons was not true.” (unquote)

In looking at this aspect of the question, the Chair must return to the words of the Auditor General himself, whose report states categorically in paragraph 2.80 that: (quote) “Some costs were not fully provided to parliamentarians.” (unquote) However, let us not forget the very high threshold required before there can be a finding of prima facie privilege. As I said a moment ago, it must be clearly established that in making the statement complained of, the Member in question knew it was incorrect and intended to mislead the House in making it.

It is relevant to note, in reference to this latter point, that the Auditor General also says, in the very same paragraph of his report, and here I am repeating a passage the Member for Toronto Centre himself read to the House: (quote) “Problems relating to development of the F-35 were not fully communicated to decision-makers,” — meaning Ministers – “and risks presented to decision makers did not reflect the problems the JSF Program was experiencing at the time. Full life-cycle costs were understated in the estimates provided to support the government’s 2010 decision to buy the F-35.” (unquote) Obviously, the Auditor General has raised concerns about the information provided. He is pointing out that in his opinion less than complete information was provided to Ministers and to Members.

On this point, drawing from a somewhat analogous case from 2004 found in Debates at page 1047 in reference to statements contained in a report of the Auditor General indicating that Parliament had been “misinformed” and “bypassed”, Speaker Milliken pointed out that no evidence had been produced to show that (quote) “departmental officials deliberately intended to deceive their superiors and so obstruct hon. Members in the performance of their duties” (unquote).

Not only has the Government House Leader stated that the government agrees with the Auditor General in this respect, the Minister has gone even further stating: (quote) “…as a government, as ministers, as a cabinet, we have a right and an expectation that the advice we receive is something on which we can rely. This is something that, in this case, the Auditor General made some findings on. We happen to agree with those findings in the end.” (unquote)

So ultimately the Chair has before it two clear statements: the first contained in the report of the Auditor General that some costs were not fully provided to Ministers and Members; and the second, by the Government House Leader accepting the conclusions of the Auditor General.

In my view, no clear evidence has been presented beyond this and thus, the Chair has no choice but to conclude that, it cannot find that Ministers knew or believed that what they were telling the House was not true or that it was intended to be misleading. In other words, the criteria of demonstrating that Ministers knew their statements to the House were incorrect, and that they intended to mislead the House, has not been met.

Accordingly, bound as I am by the very narrow parameters that apply in these situations, and without any evidence that the House was deliberately misled, I cannot arrive at a finding of prima facie privilege in this case.

The House will be aware, however, that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has, as part of its ongoing mandate, the responsibility to review and report on all reports of the Auditor General. The House knows that the Committee is seized of the report that has given rise to this question of privilege and is at present proceeding with its examination of the report. I remind the House that a determination that a breach of privilege is not prima facie at this time in no way interferes with the right of any Honourable member to raise a new question of privilege should the committee arrive at findings that shed new light on this matter, or should other pertinent information become available.

]]>Joe Comartin would like to empower the Speaker somehow to better sort out the unruly.

Mr. Comartin, meanwhile, told The Globe he believes Mr. Scheer’s rulings show he is acting independently but needs more clout. The Windsor New Democrat said the two powers the Speaker now has are either to refuse to recognize an MP or throw him or her out of the Commons. “That’s just not a broad enough way of enforcing discipline,” Mr. Comartin said.

He says through private members bills or opposition day motions, the NDP wants to debate and study how the Speaker can be given “more authority, more clear authority to be able to bring into line recalcitrant members and having the authority to discipline them in a greater variety of ways that we have now.”

I was watching a session of Prime Minister’s Questions a few months back and I saw the Speaker twice cut off the Prime Minister when he thought David Cameron was straying from the question asked. That seemed to me to be a neat trick.

So far as enforcing decorum, I’m not sure if I can see how a Speaker might be better positioned to maintain calm. (Does he need more than the threat of silence or expulsion?) Or perhaps I’m not convinced that excessive heckling is the problem here. (Would a House without heckling be inherently and practically better than what we have now?)

It seems to me the trouble is what’s said and suggested on the record in relatively even tones about how one’s opponent is a supporter of, or apologist for, evil. It’s the scripted nature of the exchanges that produces nothing even remotely like an actual conversation. It’s the backbenchers sent up to use their members’ statements and questions as free political advertising time. I’m not sure how you could make any of that against the rules (actually, whenever the Speaker has tried to place limits, enterprising war rooms have only sought ways to slur the other side while remaining vaguely within the parameters of House business).

I do wonder whether the Speaker could be empowered to demand that the minister who was named by an opposition MP actually stood to respond: essentially limiting the ability of the government to shield a minister from unpleasant questions. Of course, the Speaker ultimately serves at the pleasure of the House, so not only would he need a majority of MPs to vote for such changes, but he’d then need a majority of MPs to support him in his enforcement, lest he be subject to a vote of non-confidence (I’d like to think public outrage would prevent a majority government from ever moving against a Speaker it didn’t like, but I’m not sure there’s any evidence to suggest this is a reasonable expectation).

Ultimately, whatever one hopes to do, what’s required is a large number of MPs who are committed to change: either because they desire it or because they know that the public desires it and will hold them accountable if it is not accomplished. And that is the fundamental riddle that every single one of these discussions eventually arrives at.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/lunch-room-monitor/feed/3You can’t ask that herehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/you-cant-ask-that-here/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/you-cant-ask-that-here/#commentsFri, 02 Dec 2011 17:15:04 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=228241On the requirement that questions concern the “administrative responsibility” of government, the Speaker now seems to be taking a strict stance. Yesterday, for instance, he ruled the following, from Liberal…

]]>On the requirement that questions concern the “administrative responsibility” of government, the Speaker now seems to be taking a strict stance. Yesterday, for instance, he ruled the following, from Liberal MP Geoff Regan, out of order.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have admitted the phone campaign of lies to the citizens of Mount Royal. The government House leader has actually said he is proud of these unsavoury tactics that seem to be straight from the era of Watergate. Would the Prime Minister heed the calls of commentators, even Conservatives, apologize for this outrage against democracy, shut down his dirty tricks team and call on Elections Canada to investigate?

Mr. Regan challenged the Speaker after Question Period and the Speaker duly promised to get back to the House with clarification of the rules. As Mr. Regan noted, questions about the in-and-out scheme were not ruled out of order and so it will be interesting to see where Mr. Scheer intends to draw the line here.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/you-cant-ask-that-here/feed/11The curtailment of debatehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-curtailment-of-debate/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-curtailment-of-debate/#commentsFri, 25 Nov 2011 14:00:37 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=227009The House will spend Friday debating an NDP motion on the use of time allocation and closure.That, in the opinion of the House, the thorough examination and debate of …

That, in the opinion of the House, the thorough examination and debate of proposed legislation on behalf of Canadians is an essential duty of Members of Parliament, and that the curtailment of such debate limits the ability of Members to carry out this duty and constitutes an affront to Canadian democracy; and, therefore,

That the Speaker undertake a study and make recommendations to amend the Standing Orders with respect to closure and time allocation, such that: (i) a Minister would be required to provide justification for the request for such a curtailment of debate; (ii) the Speaker would be required to refuse such a request in the interest of protecting the duty of Members to examine legislation thoroughly, unless the government’s justification sufficiently outweighs the said duty; (iii) criteria would be set out for assessing the government’s justification, which would provide the Speaker with the basis for a decision to allow for the curtailment of debate;

“Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the President of the Treasury Board, we know very well that he can Twitter. We know very well that he can tweet,” he informed the House. “What we also know is that he cannot get up on his feet.”

After the interim Liberal leader had expounded on the “absurd situation” before us—a cabinet minister unable or unwilling to stand in the House and explain his actions in helping divvy up millions in “border infrastructure” funds for bike racks and gazebos in his riding—the Prime Minister stood and restated the script about this having been “thoroughly aired” and there being “process improvements” to be made and so forth.

Then though, feeling charitable or chuffed or some combination thereof, the Prime Minister decided to impart his analysis of the spring election’s meaning and lessons.

“I would think the Liberal party,” he mused, “having run an entire campaign, the worst in its history, on this issue and having been dropped so badly, would decide that now is probably not the time to keep talking about politics in this way.”

This is, for sure, one way to look at it. In re-electing the Conservatives, the population writ large has absolved the government of the contempts against Parliament and the sooner the Liberals stop insisting on such stuff, the better for them and all of us. Put another way: so long as a sufficient number of voters are willing to cast their lot with the Conservative party, Tony Clement can do with the public accounts what he likes with no responsibility to stand in his place in the House of Commons and explain himself.

Or perhaps that’s a cynical reading of the Prime Minister’s insinuation. Perhaps he just means to advise the Liberals that such a tone—so negative and accusatory—has not served them well over the last few years. This is possibly reasonable advice.

Alas, for the NDP or Tony Clement or some combination thereof, the new official opposition seems eager to ignore the Prime Minister’s desired lesson of the 2011 general election campaign. Indeed, they seem quite dogged in their pursuit.

“When the media starting asking about how he was trying to pass off a $21 million Olympic hockey arena, complete with a swimming pool, as a media centre, he intervened with the local mayor and said: ‘Do not talk to the media until we get our lines converged,’ ” Charlie Angus explained this afternoon. “To which the mayor responded: ‘Done. Call me. I will be waiting. Fran loves it when you use that term.’ ”

This was getting a bit weird now, but Mr. Angus did have a question here. “When,” he asked, “will they stop trying to get their story straight and come clean with Canadians?”

If the government does indeed have a date in mind at which point they plan on explaining themselves, they weren’t telling. “It is this kind of muckraking that Canadians rejected in the last election campaign,” moaned John Baird, standing in once again for the standing-impaired Mr. Clement. “What they sent all of us here to do is to fight for Canadians, to fight for jobs, to fight for more opportunity, and that is exactly what the government is doing.”

Mr. Angus was unimpressed. “Mr. Speaker, it has been 110 days since the Muskoka minister was put in the doghouse and that is the best the government can come up with?” he wondered aloud.

And, in fact, it was not, because next Mr. Baird stood to boast of the jobs created by Mr. Clement’s spending.

Mostly though, Mr. Baird was full of disappointment. “Mr. Speaker, that kind of muckraking is exactly what Canadians rejected at the last election,” he sighed in the direction of the NDP’s Alexandre Boulerice. “What they wanted from their elected representatives was a team of men and women who would fight for jobs, who would fight for more opportunities, for more hope, and that is exactly what this government is doing each and every day.”

When Ralph Goodale stood, recounted Mr. Clement’s actions on this file and observed that “this looks like the behaviour of a coward,” Mr. Baird pronounced himself positively besmirched. “I would have expected better from him,” he lamented, “and I will not dignify his question with a response.”

When Marc Garneau next informed the House that he “entered politics to counter the public’s perception that politicians are on the take” and that “regrettably, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka is making that extremely difficult,” there was much grumbling from the government members and the Speaker stood to call for order.

“There is a long-standing tradition that you cannot do indirectly what you are not allowed to do directly,” Speaker Scheer observed. “This is the second time I have heard an indirect way of making an unparliamentary remark so I think we will move on to the honourable member for Windsor—Tecumseh.”

The Conservative side—champions one and all of the sanctity and principles of this chamber—applauded the Speaker’s ruling enthusiastically.

The Stats. The G8 Legacy Fund, nine questions. The environment, seven questions. Infrastructure and crime, four questions each. Oil sands development, trade and the environment, three questions each. Science, two questions. Political fundraising and cigarettes, one question each.

When the House of Commons resumes sitting this week, the first order of business for MPs will be electing a new Speaker. It will seem strange not to have Liberal Peter Milliken striving to keep order from the big chair. Milliken, 64, didn’t stand for re-election in his Kingston, Ont., riding this spring, ending his record decade-long run as Speaker. Maclean’s spoke to him in the elegant wood-panelled office he’s now leaving, sitting under a large framed print of Yousuf Karsh’s famous wartime portrait photo of Winston Churchill, which was taken on that very spot.

Q:When did you first become interested in the goings-on of the House of Commons?

A: The first visit I remember would have been in Grade 7 or 8. After I got into high school, my cousin John Matheson got elected from Leeds, right next door to Kingston. Once I got my driver’s licence, I started to come up to visit. He told me I could subscribe to Hansard and I started in 1962. I might have been 16. It was that period when I started following what went on in the House.

Q:Did you think at that time that you wanted to be an MP?

A: I can’t remember. Probably. Certainly the whole idea of the job interested me. I worked here in the summers of 1967 and 1968 for George McIlraith, who was the government House leader when he hired me, but was public works minister when I worked for him.

Q:Let’s jump ahead to 1988. You’d been a lawyer in Kingston and you defeated a big Tory name, Flora MacDonald, in that year’s election. How early in your time as an MP did the Speaker’s job start appealing to you?

A: It occurred to me in 1988. Not that I had any hope of making it. But the idea of trying did occur to me. I remember being discouraged by my whip. Obviously, I didn’t think other members were going to vote for someone they had never met.

Q:You eventually won in 2001.

A: I’d been deputy Speaker already, so I had some experience in the chair. I think other members were comfortable in supporting me for the speakership.

Q:And your long run as Speaker began. How has the atmosphere in the House changed over the years?

A: I think minority Parliaments tend to be more partisan. Parties are trying to score points over the others constantly. They want to get up in the polls [in case] there’s an election call. In a majority Parliament, you don’t normally have that degree of partisanship because you don’t have all the points to gain on immediate tricks in the House. There tends to be a more substantial policy differential that you exploit in argument. One hopes that with a majority Parliament the level of partisanship will decline somewhat.

Q:What were the crisis points that stood out as particularly challenging to you?

A: Hard to say. Certainly the media have made big plays of my rulings on production of documents, two of them. But, in a majority House, you wouldn’t have had those issues come to the Speaker at all. You wouldn’t have had a demand to the government, passed by the House, that the government wasn’t prepared to meet. So I think that while [the rulings] have some importance in terms of the privileges of the House, you wouldn’t even have these issues come to the chair in a majority situation.

Q:The House has been raucous in recent years. Beyond traditional heckling and haranguing, did you worry question period exchanges have declined below what’s reasonable?

A: In a minority Parliament, there tend to be a lot more shots taken by one party at another, whether it’s in the question or in the answer. That’s what’s going on. In a majority Parliament you wouldn’t see that as often, in my experience.

Q: But even the time MPs are given to make statements before question period, which used to be innocuous, is now sometimes stridently partisan. Should that be allowed?

A: It’s caused some trouble in the House, for sure. It was there so members could say something about somebody who had died in their riding, or won an award in their riding. Something significant at the local level. It’s turned into attack statements. They could abolish them completely and I don’t think it would make a big difference now.

Q:Many proposals for reforming the House have been floated. For instance, some say we should adopt the British practice of designating one day for the prime minister to answer questions. What do you think of that?

A: It lets the prime minister off the hook four days a week. I don’t think it’s an improvement. Having the prime minister there three or four days a week and choosing what to answer is, from my point of view, worthwhile. If I were in the opposition and the prime minister wasn’t answering, I’d make something of it after—I’d say, “I asked the prime minister questions and he wouldn’t answer, dumped it on a minister.”

Q:What about calls for encouraging more substantive QP exchanges by allowing questions and answers longer than the current time limit. Isn’t 35 seconds just too short?

A: It’s not too short. What they want is time to make statements. You should be able to ask your question in 35 seconds. You might not be able to make all the statements you’d like to make in addition, but I don’t see that we need statements as well. It may be harder for those giving answers to squeeze in all they’d like to say. On the other hand, what they’re saying is sometimes irrelevant to the question. It’s a game. The 35-second rule isn’t a big problem. In my view, it works well.

Q:Did you ever throw an MP out of the House?

A: I’ve never done it. It’s happened with at least one of my deputy speakers, if not two.

Q:But why not throw out MPs more often when they get out of line?

A: Before I was Speaker, I said one of the problems with this practice of giving the Speaker the power to throw a guy out is that he’s out of the chamber for a day. No rights or privileges suspended. He gets paid. He can fly to Vancouver. He can go to work in his office. He can go to caucus meetings. He can go and have a press conference in the foyer.

Q:What would be a better punishment?

A: My urging years ago, when I was not Speaker, was the guy should be thrown out of the Parliament Buildings, not allowed in for the rest of the day. All travelling privileges suspended and his pay docked for the day. Then the guy would start listening to what the Speaker says. Otherwise, you just make a saint of the person. He can hold a press conference and say, I called the prime minister a liar, or whatever the offence was, and I was right. Blah, blah, blah. He’ll get more media coverage if the Speaker threw him out. It’s not a very effective penalty.

Q:You’re known for trying to keep up social contacts among MPs across party lines. What do you do?

A: I have dinners for MPs, 30 or 40 at a dinner every two weeks or so when the House is sitting. I mix them up at a table.

Q: That sort of socializing among MPs from different parties is rarer than it was in earlier eras, isn’t it?

A: The change in the hours of sitting has had a significant effect. Members used to go up to the parliamentary restaurant to eat between six and eight when we had night sittings. Needless to say, they sat there with members not of their own party and chatted and maybe had a drink. It helped people get to know one another and be respectful to one another. So getting rid of the night sittings really altered the way the place operated. Plus, the lunch hour is gone. They took away the night sittings and added two hours [of sitting] at lunchtime. So lunch is served in the lobbies. Well, you don’t mix in the lobbies.

Q:Is the place less fun now than in your early years here?

A: I guess less fun is probably a fair description.

Q:Do you think it’s up to the party leaders to set a better tone, and were there any who you felt lowered the tone?

A: Certainly the leaders have a significant influence. If their tone is down it will lower the tone for the others. There won’t be many members who are going to strive to be better than their leader in terms of their approach to issues in the House. It’s a difficult one. I don’t think there were any particular members, certainly I wouldn’t name any.

Q: Why not?

A: Well, I just don’t think it’s appropriate to do so. As I’ve said, I think the tone in the House was down in the minority. So you could get away with more and no one was going to object because everybody wanted to do the same thing.

Q:You blame all parties, then.

A: It got to that point. There may have been people who had an interest in a better tone at the start. But as things went downhill they pitched in too.

Q:I’m told you’ve at least raised the quality of the wine and Scotch served in the Speaker’s dining room.

A: I don’t buy expensive bottles, but I choose it all. Sometimes I’ll load my car up with 20 cases in Kingston and bring them up.

Q:What’s your favourite Scotch?

A: I drink almost any of them, but there’s a Speaker’s Selection by Dalwhinnie. That was voted in by the members of Parliament at a whisky tasting. It’s a single malt, but a reasonably bland one, compared to the one we had before, which was a Talisker. It was much peatier. I’m happy either way.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/how-minority-parliaments-lower-the-tone-why-tossing-out-mps-fails-and-his-favourite-scotch/feed/2He’ll have the cold cut combohttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/hell-have-the-cold-cut-combo/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/hell-have-the-cold-cut-combo/#commentsMon, 06 Jun 2011 19:33:51 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=195813The NDP apparently rejected a deal that would’ve made Lee Richardson the new Speaker. As a result, we now have a Speaker who will give you the business card off…

]]>The NDP apparently rejected a deal that would’ve made Lee Richardson the new Speaker. As a result, we now have a Speaker who will give you the business card off his back.

After completing my master’s degree, I drove the Escort up to Ottawa to work in the federal public service. Walking down Bank Street one evening, I saw a sign on Subway restaurant stating it was the last day that Sub Club stamps would be accepted. I ran to my apartment to get my pile of stamps before Subway closed.

Upon returning to the Bank Street franchise, I found myself in line with Andrew. The Subway cashier informed me that he could not accept a handful of loose stamps; they had to be affixed to cards. I asked if he had any blank Sub Club cards. The cashier explained that he did not because the program was ending, but that he was prepared to accept any type of card. Without missing a beat, Andrew pulled out his business cards and offered that I could use them. So, I stood there sticking Sub Club stamps onto “Andrew Scheer, MP” cards while he ordered his sandwich. That’s my best story about Andrew being a good guy.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/hell-have-the-cold-cut-combo/feed/3The letter and spirithttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-letter-and-spirit/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-letter-and-spirit/#commentsFri, 03 Jun 2011 16:41:41 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=195576Andrew Scheer’s remarks to Parliament yesterday as he sought the Speaker’s chair.In the last Parliament, I also noticed the way toxic language has crept into debate. We have a …

]]>Andrew Scheer’s remarks to Parliament yesterday as he sought the Speaker’s chair.

In the last Parliament, I also noticed the way toxic language has crept into debate. We have a list of unparliamentary words but we need to go beyond that. I do not think unparliamentary language should be constricted to only a technical list. The speaker should ensure that members follow not just the letter of the rules regarding unparliamentary language but the spirit as well. Base name calling and questioning the motives of other hon. members create a toxic environment, which I think is what Canadians feel let down the most about. By showing each other the mutual respect that we would expect from anyone else is very important.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-letter-and-spirit/feed/2Who will be the next Speaker of the House?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/in-need-of-a-speaker/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/in-need-of-a-speaker/#commentsThu, 02 Jun 2011 15:02:01 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=195170LIVE BLOG: Aaron Wherry reports from the Speaker's election

]]>Greetings from the press gallery of the House of Commons, where we will shortly commence with live coverage of the 41st Parliament’s Speaker election. MPs are presently filing into the chamber, acquainting and reacquainting themselves with each other. The proceedings will commence around 11 o’clock.

There are presently eight candidates seeking the post: Dean Allison, Barry Devolin, Ed Holder, Lee Richardson, Denise Savoie, Andrew Scheer, Bruce Stanton and Merv Tweed. Officially, Justin Trudeau will appear on the first ballot, but that is owing to his having not notified the clerk in time that he did not wish to be in the running (MPs must officially opt out of the Speaker’s election).

Very shortly the Usher of the Black Rod will arrive to inform the House that its collective presence is required at the Senate. The Speaker of the Senate will then inform the House that it should choose a Speaker if it wishes to proceed with business. The House will reconvene and Louis Plamondon, as the longest serving MP in the House, will take the chair. The candidates for Speaker will then be called to stand and briefly state their respective cases.

11:11am. Well the message has been delivered and the members—most of them at least—are now shuffling out and down the hall for the arduous journey to the Senate. For those of you keeping track of the seating plan at home, the new official opposition frontbench goes Davies, Perreault, Duncan, Angus, Crowder, Boulerice, Chisholm, Julian, Nash, Davies, Layton, Mulcair, Comartin, Harris, Dewar, Chow, Godin, Boivin, Stoffer, Christopherson, Allen. The four Bloc MPs and Elizabeth May are in the far southeast corner, just behind the diminished Liberal caucus. Thirteen Conservatives MP spill over to the opposition side in the northeast corner.

11:26am. Mr. Plamondon has taken the chair and Mr. Trudeau has formally notified the House that he does not wish to be Speaker (various members made a show of being disappointed). On then to the speeches.

11:33am. Dean Allison promises “thoughtful discernment” and aims to “maintain the sanctity of this place.” He is also keen on free speech. Barry Devolin ventures that this goes beyond party or friendship. He targets Ed Holder and claims he himself has sufficient business experience. He targets Lee Richardson and claims he himself has sufficient life experience. He targets Denise Savoie and claims he himself is sufficiently bilingual. He targets Bruce Stanton and claims he is of sufficient temperament. The gist of this, apparently, is that he is closest to the perfect Speaker, a unique mix of everything anyone else can offer.

11:48am. Ed Holder says he is standing for Speaker because other MPs, from various parties, encouraged him to do so. He promises not only greater decorum and civility, but also fiscal responsibility. Lee Richardson recalls the “oratorical masters” he has admired and suggests he has the “personal fortitude” to take on the hallowed duties of Speaker. He admits his French needs a little work.

11:53am. Denise Savoie vows a “singular focus on raising the tone of debate.” Part of this: “concrete procedural changes.” Helpfully reminds everyone here that the goal is supposed to be good public policy. She suggests the Speaker exists to nurture a proper environment and she imagines a place of witty, informed, intelligent debate. She asks MPs to support her “only” if they are willing to do their part.

11:59am. Andrew Scheer recalls the words of William Lenthall and refers members to his experience and performance as deputy speaker. Proceeds with a couple jokes about his age (he’s 32). Says the standing orders must be more strictly enforced and suggests he won’t allow consistently disrespectful members to ask questions. There is promptly some heckling from the Liberal corner about government ministers and John Baird.

12:05pm. Bruce Stanton recalls his experience running his family’s resort and the lessons of working with others. He notes the balance between decorum and the privileges of members. Hopes Canadians will be able to take “greater pride” in what happens here. According to his French teacher, he speaks the language on an intermediate level.

12:09pm. Merv Tweed works in a reference to the Winnipeg Jets. He laments a “severe decline of decorum in this wonderful chamber,” up to and including the fact members attack each other. Promises to be the Speaker for all members. Says he has been serving with “respect and dignity” and will continue to do so if he’s elected today.

12:13pm. Members will now scatter for an hour to “reflect.” Which is to say they will now go partake of the hospitality suites.

1:20pm. We have reconvened now for the first vote (six “polling stations” are set up in the centre aisle and MPs line up to cast their ballots). It is essentially a run-off vote until someone gets more than 50 per cent. The candidate with the lowest total and anyone who receives less than five per cent of the ballots cast will be dropped after each vote. Last time around it took five ballots to elect Peter Milliken. The first time a Speaker was elected, in 1986, the vote required 11 ballots and went until 2am.

1:34pm. It would be tacky to dwell too long on this whole “My, those NDP MPs are young” thing, but… along the back row of the NDP side, Pierre-Luc Dusseault and Mylene Freeman are seatmates. Their combined age? 42.

2:07pm. With nothing much to do while the ballots are counted, one can only sit and watch the MPs mill and chat. After awhile it begins to feel like watching a zoo inclosure.

2:10pm. First ballot results are in. Dean Allison and Bruce Stanton have been eliminated. Off to the second ballot.

3:00pm. Second ballot results are in. Ed Holder has been eliminated. Off to the third ballot.

3:27pm. In case you were wondering, the Throne Speech will be delivered at 3pm tomorrow by Governor General David Johnston. We should be just about done selecting a Speaker by then.

3:40pm. Third ballot results are in. Barry Devolin has been eliminated. Off to the fourth ballot.

4:08pm. There are various theories now as to how this vote plays out. None of them, of course, are based on anything like actual numbers because the results are not revealed. One possibility that’s not being discussed: a new Speaker is elected, but suddenly Peter Milliken’s theme music (the Tragically Hip’s “Courage”) starts playing. Everyone looks around shocked and then Mr. Milliken steps out from behind the throne, smashes the winner over the head with a steel chair and reveals that, when no one was paying attention three months ago, he and a band of rebel MPs passed a motion to make him Speaker for life.

4:19pm. Fourth ballot results are in. Merv Tweed has been eliminated. Off to the fifth ballot.

4:23pm. After disappearing for a bit, the Prime Minister is back in his seat and once more going over a pile of documents at his desk. Rest assured that, despite the instability caused by this Speaker’s election, Mr. Harper will not be distracted from his paperwork.

4:43pm. One of the younger NDP MPs just skipped up an aisle to her spot in the back row.

4:48pm. Elizabeth May is going around handing pieces of paper to newly elected MPs. Apparently it’s for some kind of party. I’m going to go ahead and allege that it is a pool party at her house.

4:58pm. Fifth ballot results are in. Lee Richardson has been eliminated, leaving only Andrew Scheer and Denise Savoie. Off to the sixth ballot.

5:03pm. Mr. Scheer is now standing in centre aisle, accepting handshakes from a procession of Conservatives. Fans of math may note that the Conservatives hold more than half of the seats in the House of Commons. Make of this what you will.

5:13pm. Fans of obscure procedural history will note that this equals 1994 as the second-longest election for Speaker since Parliament adopted this process in 1986.

5:37pm. Sixth ballot results are in … and the winner is Andrew Scheer. The House of Kids gets a Boy Speaker.

5:40pm. Mr. Scheer makes a good show of not really wanting the job as Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton drag him to the chair. Mr. Layton jabs him in the back with his cane and Mr. Harper gives him one last shove as he ascends to the throne. Mr. Plamondon cedes the spot and Speaker Scheer officially takes power. In doing so, he becomes the 35th, and youngest, individual to hold the position.

5:44pm. He humbly acknowledges the “great honour” conferred upon him. Turning to the gallery he notes the presence of his wife and infant son (the youngest of his four children) and his parents. He thanks all for the trust they have placed in him and manages his first “order” in response to some playful heckling from the government side. He understands, he says, that all are here to make Canada the best country in the world and vows to do his best to live up to the trust placed in him.

5:50pm. Kind words now from Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton and Bob Rae. Much hoping for civility and decorum and respect. The Prime Minister manages a hockey analogy. The Leader of the Opposition publicly commits for the official record that there will be no heckling from side. Mr. Rae says he will not commit to complete silence from his side, pronouncing himself a “profound realist.” He says he is looking forward to the “first sign of life” from the official opposition and will be waiting to see how long the vow of silence lasts. The NDP side seems not terribly impressed.

5:58pm. Final words now from Mr. Plamondon on behalf of the Bloc and, in her House debut, the Green’s Elizabeth May. Ms. May senses we have the makings of a more respectful Parliament and vows that, like Mr. Layton, she will commit that no one in the Green caucus will participate in heckling.

6:01pm. The Speaker offers a few more words of thanks and duly informs the House that the Governor General will be arriving on Parliament Hill at 2:30pm tomorrow and will proceed to the Senate to open the 41st Parliament. The House is thus duly adjourned.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/in-need-of-a-speaker/feed/23For your consideration: Barry Devolinhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/for-your-consideration-barry-devolin/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/for-your-consideration-barry-devolin/#commentsMon, 30 May 2011 21:32:32 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=194653Next in our series on the prospective speakers, Barry Devolin, the MP for Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock. His answers are after the jump.
Previously we heard from Lee Richardson, Bruce Stanton and…

I believe the Speaker’s principle responsibility is to serve Members, both as a group and as individuals. The Speaker must ensure that the will of the House is done. The Speaker must also ensure that every Member has the opportunity to participate and contribute. As a deputy Speaker and committee Chair, I have enjoyed the role of facilitator, and would like the opportunity to further serve my colleagues as their Speaker.

2. To what degree have you been concerned about the levels of civility and decorum in the House during recent sessions? Would your approach to maintaining civility differ from Mr. Milliken’s and, if so, how?

Every Member has a concern about the deteriorating level of mutual respect in the House. If I am elected as Speaker, I will take that as a mandate to lead an effort by all Chair Occupants to bring a stricter interpretation of existing rules to the House. In my view, we do not need more rules. To use a hockey analogy, we need the referees to call more penalties. My approach will be to begin to enforce a stricter code during routine debate, thereby building momentum towards ultimately making durable improvements in Question Period.

3. Mr. Milliken objected to the use of statements by members to launch partisan and personal attacks? Do you share his concern and, if so, what could be done to deal with this matter?

I agree with Speaker Milliken that the purpose of Members’ Statements is not to launch personal attacks on other Members. If I am elected Speaker, I will continue to enforce this policy.

4. Mr. Milliken made three closely watched rulings on privilege during the last Parliament: specifically on matters related to the opposition’s access to documents in regards to the transfer of detainees in Afghanistan, International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda’s dealings with the House and an opposition demand that the government comply with certain requests for information. Did you at the time, or do you now, have any objections to any part of those rulings? As Speaker, would you have handled those matters at all differently?

I think Speaker Milliken found an admirable balance between the right of Parliament to demand information, and the right of government to do its job, which includes keeping some information confidential. In the case of the Afghan detainees in particular, I think that Speaker Milliken presented an innovative solution that allowed both sides to meet their primary objectives.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/for-your-consideration-barry-devolin/feed/2For your consideration: Denise Savoiehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/for-your-consideration-denise-savoie/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/for-your-consideration-denise-savoie/#commentsThu, 26 May 2011 21:26:53 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=194336Following Lee Richardson and Bruce Stanton, here are responses from Denise Savoie, the MP for Victoria, to our questions for the prospective speakers.1. First and foremost, why do you …

My decision to run for speaker stems from my concern over declining opinions of the institution of Parliament, which bodes ill for our democracy. My goal is to help raise the tone of debate to a level that restores the trust that Canadians deserve to have in their democratic institutions. I’d like to continue the work I initiated when I was Assistant Deputy speaker ( see below in #2)

2. To what degree have you been concerned about the levels of civility and decorum in the House during recent sessions? Would your approach to maintaining civility differ from Mr. Milliken’s and, if so, how?

Very Concerned- This is the reason why in the last session, I initiated a multi-party process to explore solutions to address the need for greater political literacy skills amongst MPs; civility being part of those skills. After several meetings, participating members unanimously supported the idea of piloting an MP training program to improve their interactions in parliamentary debate. The idea was being considered by the Standing Cte of Procedure and House Affairs for all party buy-in when the Government was defeated. Should I be Speaker, I would want to continue to work with party officials to have them consider such a process. I would also like to continue to foster a positive multi-party environment where members can appreciate the interests they hold in common through discussions such as those I spearheaded on climate change with noted scientists and weekly meeting on the arts.

I will ask for the support of members only if they are willing to do their part to improve decorum and civility in the House and to work with me toward improving the way we conduct our interactions. I am offering to facilitate a process by which each member and party commits to imposing a higher standard on ourselves, a formal mechanism to monitor our conduct in the House and to make procedural changes that support those goals.

3. Mr. Milliken objected to the use of statements by members to launch partisan and personal attacks? Do you share his concern and, if so, what could be done to deal with this matter?

I share this concern. Allowing Members’ statements to be turned into personal attacks creates an unfair environment where the person being attacked cannot respond; it doesn’t seem in keeping with the reasons S31s were established. I would ask the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to consider tightening up the rules and procedures.

4. Mr. Milliken made three closely watched rulings on privilege during the last Parliament: specifically on matters related to the opposition’s access to documents in regards to the transfer of detainees in Afghanistan, International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda’s dealings with the House and an opposition demand that the government comply with certain requests for information. Did you at the time, or do you now, have any objections to any part of those rulings? As Speaker, would you have handled those matters at all differently?

I agree with his rulings. A primary role of Parliament is to hold the Government to account especially on financial matters. These rulings all helped protect that historical role.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/for-your-consideration-denise-savoie/feed/0For your consideration: Bruce Stantonhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/for-your-consideration-bruce-stanton/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/for-your-consideration-bruce-stanton/#commentsWed, 25 May 2011 19:27:59 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=194155Ahead of the election of a new Speaker on June 2, I’ve sent each of the candidates a set of questions about the job and promised to post here all…

]]>Ahead of the election of a new Speaker on June 2, I’ve sent each of the candidates a set of questions about the job and promised to post here all responses in their entirety. First up, this morning, was Lee Richardson. Here now is Bruce Stanton, the MP for Simcoe North.

1. First and foremost, why do you want this job?

To help facilitate greater decorum and civility in the House – a matter of common criticism by my constituents. This is one way of trying to do something about it.

2. To what degree have you been concerned about the levels of civility and decorum in the House during recent sessions? Would your approach to maintaining civility differ from Mr. Milliken’s and, if so, how?

I echo the concerns of the people I represent who find decorum in the House to be an embarrassment – in what would otherwise be our most respected democratic institution. Improving civility would start with setting the tone and tenor – insisting that unparliamentary language – the area that affords the Speaker some discretion – will be dealt with using a progression of sanctions – from warning, to insisting the Member come to order, to not recognizing, and possibly to naming the Member. I would also look to sponsor and establish events outside of the sittings, for M.P.’s to become more familiar with colleagues across party lines.

3. Mr. Milliken objected to the use of statements by members to launch partisan and personal attacks? Do you share his concern and, if so, what could be done to deal with this matter?

Speaker Milliken had it right. The Standing Orders compel M.P.’s not to use offensive words towards any fellow M.P.. On the question of what constitutes “offensive”, that remains with the Speaker to determine (or other MP’s for that matter). What is needed is the will to act upon it. In my view, this transgression must have consequences – being brought to order, not being recognized (turning off the microphone).

4. Mr. Milliken made three closely watched rulings on privilege during the last Parliament: specifically on matters related to the opposition’s access to documents in regards to the transfer of detainees in Afghanistan, International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda’s dealings with the House and an opposition demand that the government comply with certain requests for information. Did you at the time, or do you now, have any objections to any part of those rulings? As Speaker, would you have handled those matters at all differently?

I believe Mr. Milliken’s rulings were fair and consistent with his obligations to uphold Parliamentary prerogative in these matters. They were well-researched and within the bounds of the Speaker’s role to move the question toward resolution.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/for-your-consideration-bruce-stanton/feed/3For your consideration: Lee Richardsonhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/for-your-consideration-lee-richardson/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/for-your-consideration-lee-richardson/#commentsWed, 25 May 2011 12:43:26 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=193911Yesterday, I emailed the offices of the seven MPs confirmed to be seeking the Speaker’s post. I sent each candidate the same set of questions with the promise that I…

]]>Yesterday, I emailed the offices of the seven MPs confirmed to be seeking the Speaker’s post. I sent each candidate the same set of questions with the promise that I would reprint here any and all responses in their entirety. Those questions were as follows.

1. First and foremost, why do you want this job?

2. To what degree have you been concerned about the levels of civility and decorum in the House during recent sessions? Would your approach to maintaining civility differ from Mr. Milliken’s and, if so, how?

3. Mr. Milliken objected to the use of statements by members to launch partisan and personal attacks? Do you share his concern and, if so, what could be done to deal with this matter?

4. Mr. Milliken made three closely watched rulings on privilege during the last Parliament: specifically on matters related to the opposition’s access to documents in regards to the transfer of detainees in Afghanistan, International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda’s dealings with the House and an opposition demand that the government comply with certain requests for information. Did you at the time, or do you now, have any objections to any part of those rulings? As Speaker, would you have handled those matters at all differently?

Responses will be posted here in the order they are received.

First up, Lee Richardson, the MP for Calgary Centre, who sends along the following.

It’s about respect. We’ll never restore decorum without first restoring respect for the Institution and for each other as Members.

I fondly remember, as a much younger man following razor sharp debate from the Opposition gallery. My boss, the Rt. Hon.John Diefenbaker and NDP Leader, David Lewis in fierce oratory. During evening sessions I sat with Sophie Lewis, often it was just the two of us, quietly cheering our respective heroes. The combatants didn’t agree on much but there was mutual respect and civility as well as eloquence.

It was a time, before excessive partisanship and 10 second TV clips, when Members practised mutual respect and earned the respect of Canadians. It was not only an honour and privilege to be a Member of Parliament but an honourable profession held in high regard. Members strove to uphold that reputation.

My goal, my reason for seeking the office of Speaker, is to restore that respect for Parliament and parliamentarians.

There are a number of ways we can regain that respect, dignity and decorum. At the beginning of each new Session, Parties all profess to strive for civility, nothing new here. I think we have a unique opportunity this time to make it happen and stick with it.

Over the years, and more so recently, I have had discussions with former Speakers about the increasing difficulty they appear to have in preserving order and decorum in the House and why they seem reluctant to impose the discipline and sanctions they have available to them. There are many reasons given as well as possible remedies. In speaking to my Parliamentary colleagues over the past few weeks I have found a strong willingness to work together and make the changes necessary to restore civility and respect. I will outline the specifics of my proposals to achieve this goal in my remarks to the Members on June 2nd.

Foremost I would seek by example, to establish fairly but firmly, a correct tone in the House that would encourage and reflect a probity and simply, “good manners” that the Canadian public should righly expect from their elected representatives.

I believe we have an opportunity now to turn the corner. While the House always will be combative, my clear goal will be to restore dignity and mutual respect, and again make the institution an honourable place to debate policy once again.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/for-your-consideration-lee-richardson/feed/12The decorum questionhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-decorum-question/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-decorum-question/#commentsTue, 24 May 2011 12:52:42 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=193727Andrew Scheer sounds ready to be a tough(er) Speaker.“In some ways Canada’s debate in the House of Commons has slipped,” he said, noting he would “call a tighter game” …

“In some ways Canada’s debate in the House of Commons has slipped,” he said, noting he would “call a tighter game” so that those who spend question period “hooting and hollering” while others are trying to speak, for example, are barred from getting up to ask their own questions. “I think if a Speaker were to establish that type of tone early on in a parliamentary session, then the MPs would adapt. They’d understand ‘O.K., this Speaker’s not going to tolerate behaviour like that’ and I think they will adjust their behaviour accordingly.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-decorum-question/feed/3‘I’m asking my fellow MPs to imagine a Parliament that functions well’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/im-asking-my-fellow-mps-to-imagine-a-parliament-that-functions-well/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/im-asking-my-fellow-mps-to-imagine-a-parliament-that-functions-well/#commentsFri, 20 May 2011 17:58:55 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=193312The NDP’s Denise Savoie has officially entered the race to be the next Speaker of the House. From the news release:“I’m running for Speaker with a singular focus on …

]]>The NDP’s Denise Savoie has officially entered the race to be the next Speaker of the House. From the news release:

“I’m running for Speaker with a singular focus on raising the tone and quality of debate in Parliament, to restore the trust that Canadians deserve to have in their politicians and democratic institutions,” said Savoie.

As Assistant Deputy Speaker in the last Parliament Savoie launched a number of explicitly non-partisan initiatives aimed at fostering constructive and informed discussion on important topics, including workshops on climate change and the first all-party Parliamentary Arts Caucus. “I’m asking my fellow MPs to imagine a Parliament that functions well – where debate is not focused on scoring points, but rather on creating better, more inclusive public policy,” said Savoie.

As a fluently bilingual Franco-Manitoban who has lived in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and now in British Columbia, Savoie brings a pan-Canadian perspective to the Speaker’s Chair.

Of the seven MPs who are now in the race—Savoie, Andrew Scheer, Lee Richardson, Ed Holder, Barry Devolin, Merv Tweed and Dean Allison—five voted in favour of Michael Chong’s motion on Question Period reform. Mr. Scheer was in the Speaker’s chair at the time of the vote and Mr. Holder’s vote was paired.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/im-asking-my-fellow-mps-to-imagine-a-parliament-that-functions-well/feed/2Place your betshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/place-your-bets/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/place-your-bets/#commentsTue, 17 May 2011 15:37:34 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=192186The Canadian Press widens the current field to replace Peter Milliken as Speaker to six MPs, all of them Conservatives.Ever-cheerful Saskatchewan MP Andrew Scheer, who has worked alongside Peter …

]]>The Canadian Press widens the current field to replace Peter Milliken as Speaker to six MPs, all of them Conservatives.

Ever-cheerful Saskatchewan MP Andrew Scheer, who has worked alongside Peter Milliken as deputy speaker and assistant deputy speaker, is again trying his luck. He’s also the only functionally bilingual candidate among the Conservative MPs in the running. The NDP has said it believes the Speaker should be bilingual. “I think back in 2004 I was quite the heckler, quite the partisan guy, and spending so many years in the chair has really taught me the importance of impartiality for the chair occupants but also a better personal understanding of what motivates other members of other parties,” said Scheer, who turns 31 on the weekend. “(It’s) the idea that while you certainly might believe that your ideas and your policies are the best for Canada, not to take anything away from the opposition MPs who truly do want the same thing that you want — for Canada to be the best country in the world.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/place-your-bets/feed/11The next Speaker of the Househttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-next-speaker-of-the-house/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-next-speaker-of-the-house/#commentsFri, 13 May 2011 12:55:42 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=191676Conservative MPs Andrew Scheer (who served as deputy speaker during the last Parliament) and Barry Devolin (who served as an assistant speaker) will apparently seek to replace Peter Milliken as…

]]>Conservative MPs Andrew Scheer (who served as deputy speaker during the last Parliament) and Barry Devolin (who served as an assistant speaker) will apparently seek to replace Peter Milliken as Speaker of the House of Commons. NDP MP Joe Comartin, who sought the Speaker’s chair in 2008, apparently won’t do so this time around.

Mr. Comartin had publicly recommended Michael Chong for the post, but Mr. Chong’s not interested. Via email, he explains as follows.

I’m not running for Speaker, because I want to make a difference in other ways.

The Speaker can’t introduce something as simple as the changes proposed last year to Question Period. While the Speaker has some latitude in interpreting the rules, the role is that of a referee and must be neutral on policy issues. There are a number of policy issues too important to me to set aside.

In addition, the Speaker must sever ties with the party: the Speaker cannot attend national caucus, party fundraisers, or even national party conventions. I’ve been a provincial and federal Conservative for over 20 years. Continuing to work within the party is important and something that I want to continue.

]]>The Auditor General has officially replied to Jack Layton’s letter of Tuesday evening.

The Auditor General Act outlines our reporting responsibility and specifically addresses the situation of Parliament not sitting. Subsection 7(5) provides for the submission of our report to the Speaker of the House. When the House is not sitting, it requires the Speaker to table the report on any of the first 15 days on which the House is sitting after the Speaker receives it.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/i-must-respect-the-act-that-governs-my-work/feed/254How many people does it take to release a report?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-many-people-does-it-take-to-release-a-report/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-many-people-does-it-take-to-release-a-report/#commentsWed, 13 Apr 2011 20:12:18 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=183826The Speaker seemed yesterday to say it was up to the four party leaders and the Auditor General to discuss the release of a report into G8-related spending. On that…

]]>The Speaker seemed yesterday to say it was up to the four party leaders and the Auditor General to discuss the release of a report into G8-related spending. On that note, Jack Layton wrote last night to the other party leaders and the Auditor General to request a meeting.

The official Liberal response today—with an additional comment on a vote at committee by the NDP’s David Christopherson—is as follows.

We want the final report released. If Mr. Layton can explain how four leaders sitting in a room will lead to the release being made public, we’re all for it, but so far we haven’t heard that from him. It’s a shame that the NDP blocked our attempt when the House was still sitting to ensure that the report would be released in the event of a campaign because if they had, it would already be out by now.

The official Conservative response today is as so.

We have called for the final report to be made public—the Prime Minister made that clear in last night’s scrum.

The Conservative campaign has so far not responded to the specific question of whether Mr. Harper is willing to meet with his counterparts and Sheila Fraser to discuss this.

As for the Auditor General’s office, it will only confirm for now that it has received Mr. Layton’s letter and that Ms. Fraser is Nunavut for the rest of the week on business.

I have really enjoyed being their representative in this House. I am honoured to have been able to do it for so long, and so consistently in the sense that they keep re-electing me. I have appreciated that support immensely. I am very pleased and honoured to have been the member of Parliament for such a great constituency, obviously Canada’s first capital. It has been a privilege to serve my community of Kingston. I must say I look forward to spending a little more time there, if there is a dissolution shortly.

I would also like to express my profound thanks to the Clerk of the House, as well as her predecessor, Bill Corbett from the support group 2000.

Throughout, the Clerk and her officials have been very, very supportive and very, very helpful. Obviously, if I have been getting some credit for some successful decisions in the House, a lot of the credit goes to the table officers who do the work in preparing these things. I do not claim to do all that research myself. It is great.

I also want to say how much I appreciate the support of my fellow Chair occupants.

As Deputy Speakers, I have worked with: Bob Kilger; the current minister of transport; and, Bill Blaikie. The member for Regina—Qu’Appelle is the current Deputy Speaker. We have had a very interesting association among the whole group of us in a way.

The Deputy Chairs of Committees of the Whole are: Réginald Bélair; the hon. members for Hull—Aylmer and Ottawa—Orléans; and, currently, the hon. member for Victoria. I have also enjoyed working with all of them.

Finally, the Assistant Deputy Chairs of Committees of the Whole are: Eleni Bakopanos; Betty Hinton; Jean Augustine; and, currently, the hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. I thank them all for their assistance.

As a team, in each case, I think we have worked very well together.

I would like to also thank all of the dedicated staff in my Kingston office who have worked hard to keep the constituents of Kingston and the Islands happy.

Once I became Speaker, the number of days I could spend there during the week diminished somewhat, so I have not had as many appointments in the last 10 years as I did in the years before that, but they have seen a lot of constituents and dealt with a lot of the issues and helped out.

The staff in the office here in Ottawa have also been very helpful, particularly in the Speaker’s office, in assisting me in this role in helping arrange all the trips and the visiting delegations and the meetings with officials that I get to do. On behalf of the House, I appreciate their help very, very much. I thank the leader of the opposition for mentioning my old friend Jerry Yanover. We were in high school together. I am sure he would have loved to have been here today if he were still around.

I would like to thank my family, my five sisters, my brother, some of whom are here today, their spouses, their children, all of whom have helped me, and my mother. I am looking forward to again having a little more time to spend with them at the cottage when we get a break this summer. That will work out well.

I want to also thank all of you for having elected me so frequently as Speaker in this House. It has been a singular honour to serve in this position. Of course I am always delighted with the support that I get during the elections, and of course elections are a real pain in the neck for Speakers. You have two every time. However, having gotten in, I do then have the pleasure of working with each one of the members.

Toward the end of her long reign, Queen Elizabeth I, in an address to her subject, said these words: ‘… though God hath raised me high, yet this I count the glory of my Crown, that I have reigned with your loves.’

When you elected me to this job, you raised me high in this House, but what has been the wonderful part about it is the affection and the respect that you have showered upon me since my first election.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-speaker-says-goodbye/feed/2‘This is not a hockey game’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/this-is-not-a-hockey-game/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/this-is-not-a-hockey-game/#commentsFri, 11 Mar 2011 14:03:57 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=177003Speaking with reporters after QP yesterday, Michael Ignatieff’s response to the Prime Minister’s reaction to the Speaker’s rulings.This is not a hockey game. This is not a game here. …

]]>Speaking with reporters after QP yesterday, Michael Ignatieff’s response to the Prime Minister’s reaction to the Speaker’s rulings.

This is not a hockey game. This is not a game here. This is democracy. The House of Commons is where our democracy happens. When the Speaker of the House says deliver the documents and get this Minister to tell the truth, this is not kind of a matter of indifference. And the cynicism of the Prime Minister is, it seems to me, an insult to the Canadian people. What matters here is we get a Prime Minister that actually respects the democratic rules of the game. This is not the first time we’ve been here. This is the third time we’ve been here. And it begins to strain credibility when the Prime Minister says oh, this stuff doesn’t matter. What we’re talking about here are the documents that a parliament needs in order to make a budget judgment. This isn’t a matter of detail. This is a matter of principle.